Page 5999 - Week 14 - Thursday, 8 December 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
with a substantial proportion of its electricity needs. So there you have it, Madam Assistant Speaker. They are saying on the one hand that they think large-scale solar is inefficient and does nothing for the environment but on the other hand they went to the last election promising to deliver a large-scale solar power plant with baseload power, preferably, capable of delivering enough power to provide a substantial proportion of Canberra’s electricity supply. So, again, the hypocrisy is just blatant.
Thirdly, of course, Mr Seselja argues that he wants cost-efficient abatement. He says, “I believe in tackling climate change,” although we have not actually heard any policies from him for the last three years about how to achieve it. He says, “I believe in tackling climate change, but it must be cost efficient.” We all agree that it should be cost efficient, but what did we see in question time today? In question time today we saw the Liberal Party questioning the Chief Minister and this government about why we were pursuing gas-fired generation and seeking to raise the bogey of gas-fired generation. That was their question, of course, to the government.
The fact is, as the Chief Minister said very clearly, gas-fired generation is an option in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It is one of the pathways outlined for community consultation in the climate change action plan that is currently up for public comment.
Mr Seselja interjecting—
MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Order, Mr Seselja!
MR CORBELL: Of course, the problem for Mr Seselja—and he does not like it—is that pathway 3 of action plan 2, which includes gas-fired generation, is actually the most cost-efficient pathway available. So Mr Seselja likes to talk about cost efficiency, but what Mr Seselja also likes to do is criticise the possibility of using gas when, in fact, gas, and the other options outlined in pathway 3, is the most cost-efficient option open to us to achieve our greenhouse gas reduction targets. In fact, the cost of abatement in the year 2020 per capita is a net benefit of $15.38. It is actually cost positive.
So there is the contrast—he believes we should have cost-efficient generation, believes that there should be cost-efficient responses to climate change, but then criticises the elements of that very pathway that deliver the most cost-effective option. This does not mean building gas-fired generation here in the ACT. Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of how the national electricity market operates would understand that you do not have to generate within your jurisdiction to get the electricity you need from gas-fired generation. But, clearly, that very obvious and basic fact has passed Mr Seselja by. Clearly, he has not even the most rudimentary understanding of how the national electricity market operates, because if he did, he would understand that you can purchase this electricity, gas-fired electricity, from anywhere in the national grid. It does not have to be located within the borders of the ACT to get the benefits of that generation.
Those are the three fundamental failings in the speech we heard from Mr Seselja today. He criticises 40 per cent but his policy is 30 per cent. He is opposed to large-
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video