Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . . Video

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2010 Week 11 Hansard (Thursday, 21 October 2010) . . Page.. 4915 ..

Mr Rattenbury said, “It will be challenging.” Yes, it will. Yes, it will be challenging if you cannot detail it. If you do not know how you are going to get there, what vehicle you are driving, how much you are going to load it up with, what the effect is, what the long-term effect is and is it sustainable, then, yes, it will be challenging, because you have not done the work. Ideology is not a substitute for analysis and for costings. Ideology, as presented today by the Greens-Labor coalition, will be paid for by the ordinary people of the ACT.

Let us look at some of the judgements that Mr Corbell has made. Go to one of your documents, Mr Corbell. You did not know the answer in question time. I will give it to you now. “What is the cost of a tonne of CO2 courtesy of the feed-in tariff?” The abatement cost, on page 21 out of 40 of this report, if you put in solar hot water systems, is $27 per tonne of CO2 abated. If you put in wind, it is $55 per tonne of CO2 abated. If you put in green power, it is $60 per tonne of CO2 abated. And if you put in solar power, solar PVs, which I am a big supporter of but you need to know the facts, which is the feed-in tariff, in this case it is $350 per tonne—

Mrs Dunne: That is probably generous.

MR SMYTH: That is probably generous. We saw today the report that it is probably $400. But given the timing on the report, it was probably accurate at the time. This is the problem. Somebody pays for this. It is not those opposite. (Time expired).

MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment, Climate Change and Water, Minister for Energy and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (4.44): Mr Smyth and the Liberal Party should reflect on the arguments they mount about the apparent weakness of the government approach when it comes to these targets. Mr Smyth asserts that there needs to be positive, rigorous, technical analysis to underpin those targets. I simply put this question: where is their analysis for their 30 per cent target? Where is the technical analysis? Where is the rigorous assessment that underpins the legislation that is before us today for debate, a piece of legislation that establishes a 30 per cent emissions reduction target by the year 2020? Mr Smyth insists that it must be rigorous—that there must be technical analysis and detailed, robust economic analysis that underpins those targets. Where is it for his 30 per cent target? There is not any—none; zilch; nothing.

Mr Smyth: Go and look at our policies.

MR CORBELL: That is their position. That is the hypocrisy of their argument.

Mr Smyth: Persistent wilfully misleading.

MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Mr Hargreaves): Order! Stop the clock. Mr Smyth, Mr Corbell heard you in silence; I would appreciate it if you would extend to him the same courtesy.

MR CORBELL: They do not like it when the truth is pointed out to them, but that is the truth. Mr Smyth stands up and says, “We demand technical, rigorous, detailed analysis to back up your targets.” Then, putting on their other face, they walk into this

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . . Video