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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2010 Week 11 Hansard (Thursday, 21 October 2010) . . Page.. 4932 ..

As you move forward from 30 per cent up to 40 per cent, the evidence suggests that that is when you move out of the range of measures that can be done as we are moving now with the variety of measures we have adopted into more extreme measures. It is those more extreme measures that are going to be exponential when it comes to the increase in costs for Canberra families.

You asked me what it will cost. I cannot give you a definitive figure. I cannot; nor can you. But what I can say is that the figure of 40 per cent will be—and this is what we can guarantee—significantly more. It will be significantly more, and that is a cost that is going to be borne by Canberra families. It is not only going to be damaging for Canberra families but it will be damaging for our economy as we continually have to adjust subsidies to—

Mr Corbell: How do you know that, Jeremy? What analysis have you done, Jeremy?

MR HANSON: Mr Corbell is interjecting again. If he cannot accept the fact that there is going to be a significant increase in costs between applying 30 per cent and applying 40 per cent, I think he is naive. Can I tell him what that is in dollar terms? No, I cannot. But what he is asking us to do is accept blindly that 40 per cent is the figure to adopt, knowing that that is a figure that he cannot put a price on but knowing that it is going to be an absolutely massive cost to the people of the ACT, for working families.

Simon Corbell and his fellow ideologues have been sitting pretty on their ministerial salaries for some years now and have generally forgotten the cost pressures that people in Tuggeranong, Belconnen and elsewhere in Canberra—up in Gungahlin—face as they struggle to meet their power bills, their water bills and so on.

I commend this amendment that Mr Seselja has brought forward. I really want to put this on the record. Let us make sure that, as we progress with this debate, it is a sensible debate, it is measured and we get away from some of the ideological interjections that we are getting from both Mr Rattenbury and Mr Corbell. They have been absolutely unhelpful. Let us consider debate on what is going to be best for Canberra both in terms of our environment and in terms of our economy and, importantly, cost pressures and affordability for Canberrans and what they can afford with their cost of living pressures.

Question put:

That Mr Seselja’s amendment be agreed to.

The Assembly voted—

Ayes 6

Noes 10

Mr Coe

Mr Smyth

Mr Barr

Mr Hargreaves

Mr Doszpot

Ms Bresnan

Ms Hunter

Mrs Dunne

Ms Burch

Ms Le Couteur

Mr Hanson

Mr Corbell

Ms Porter

Mr Seselja

Ms Gallagher

Mr Rattenbury

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