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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2010 Week 12 Hansard (Tuesday, 26 October 2010) . . Page.. 5010 ..


MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Maybe you should deliver your speech and we will confer on this issue.

MR RATTENBURY: And we can have a think about that. I will outline the purposes of my amendment. The first, as we have touched on already in debating Mr Seselja’s amendment, to some extent, provides for a person to represent transport planning. As we know, this represents around 23 per cent of emissions currently in the ACT, and it is an important part of the transition to a clean energy city that we bring in the expertise to help tackle that sector of our emissions. Whether that is moving to improve public transport or the electrification of our transport system, there is a range of possible initiatives here on which the council can advise the minister. It is obviously a challenging area but it is important that that expertise is represented on the council.

We have discussed a person to represent those who are financially or socially disadvantaged, and I will not rehash that point. The third proposal is for an energy specialist. Somebody who has an understanding of energy and energy systems is going to be crucial to offering sensible policy advice to government on reducing emissions and someone who understands technologies and policies that can drive the uptake of renewable energy. That sort of expertise is what we have in mind here.

I think this is quite different from a person to represent retail electricity suppliers, who have a very particular and perhaps self-interested position. Somebody who can provide that broader expertise on how energy markets work, what drives investment uptake in the renewable energy sector—these are the sort of issues that the government will need advice on and which the council, I think, can usefully advise the government on.

That is the purpose of this amendment. The other one is that we brought back reference to a public employee. That is simply in order to ensure that that point is not dropped off at the end of the list. I commend the amendment to the Assembly.

MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER: My understanding is that if the Assembly grants leave for you to move your amendment then all will be okay.

MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (12.11), by leave: I move the following amendment to clause 17, as amended:

Omit new clause 17 (2) (b) (iia) (Mr Corbell’s amendment No 1).

MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER: The question now is that Mr Rattenbury’s amendment No 19, as amended, be agreed to.

MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment, Climate Change and Water, Minister for Energy and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (12.12): The government are not going to die in a ditch about how you define disadvantage or hardship. Our view is that it is adequately defined in the amendment that I moved earlier this morning—“disadvantaged groups in the


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