Page 5997 - Week 14 - Thursday, 8 December 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I certainly support Mr Seselja’s comments. I think that this is bad economic policy. It is like the green bags. It is wanting to show that you have got some environmental credibility when, if you scrape away and look beneath the veneer and you listen to the experts—in the case of green bags, the Productivity Commission; in the case of this, Richard Denniss—you realise that this is flawed policy. This is about grandstanding. This is about trying to look like you are doing something environmentally when, in actual fact, it will achieve very little in environmental outcomes. But what you will do is hurt the taxpayers of the ACT.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development) (4.44): Once again we have heard, in the Liberal Party’s opposition to these proposals today, the hypocrisy and the policy bankruptcy from a man who professes to be someone who comes from a generation that does not need to be convinced about the importance of protecting our environment.
Let us deal with Mr Seselja’s arguments in order. First of all he asserts that the ACT government is reckless for imposing, in his words, a 40 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emission levels based on 1990 levels by the year 2020. He says it is eight times the national target. “It’s outrageous. How on earth are we going achieve it?” Of course, what he never mentions, because he is a bit embarrassed about it now, even though I think the bill is still technically on the notice paper, is that he proposes and his party proposes a 30 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. He argues for a 30 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. So his target is not eight times the national target; it is only six times the national target.
Mr Seselja interjecting—
MR CORBELL: Mr Seselja goes on to argue: “Well, if that’s an excessive level, 40 per cent, it means that there will be no additionality. There will be no recognition of abatement above the national target.” If that is his position, and if he believes his own argument, then he has a problem too, because he has six times the national target of additionality to deal with. So which is it, Mr Seselja? Which argument do you want to accept? Your problem is that you are exposed as hypocritical when it comes to your policy position. You are exposed as a hypocrite in relation to that matter.
MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Mrs Dunne): Would you like to withdraw “hypocrite”, Mr Corbell?
MR CORBELL: I am happy to withdraw “hypocrite”, Madam Assistant Speaker, but the position itself is overwhelmingly hypocritical.
Mr Rattenbury: On a point of order, Madam Assistant Speaker, just before Mr Corbell made the remark you have just asked him to withdraw, I believe I heard Mr Seselja say across the chamber that Mr Corbell was misleading the Assembly in the comments he was making about Mr Seselja’s view of the target. I understand that that is unparliamentary. I would be happy to give Mr Seselja leave if he would like to stand up and explain exactly what his position is.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video