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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2011 Week 13 Hansard (Wednesday, 16 November 2011) . . Page.. 5430 ..


Question so resolved in the negative.

MR SESELJA (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (4.33): Before I get on to the amendment, I will just briefly respond to Mr Rattenbury. Mr Rattenbury, instead of actually dealing with the censure motion, decided that he would question what I have been saying. I thought I would correct the record for him. He is claiming that I have said that it is going to be $225 a year from the small-scale scheme. In fact, that is not what I have said. What I said is that households who cannot afford solar panels will be slugged an extra $225 a year to compensate those who can. I stand by that, because those are the government’s own numbers. Households will be slugged $225 a year to compensate those who can put it on their roof in a residential context, for businesses and for large-scale solar.

For Mr Rattenbury to come in here, claim misleading and then give misleading information has a fair amount of irony in it. He heard it publicly and again today. I confirm for him—I note that they are sensitive on this—that it is $225 a year and I have not claimed any different.

I turn to the amendment. There does come a point when eventually the Assembly has to say that enough is enough. The reason we are here today is not because of an inadvertent mislead. It is because of several efforts to mislead the community by Simon Corbell, a minister who has done it so many times over the years. I think Mr Hanson in his amendment and in his speech supporting that amendment outlined just a few of those examples.

I ask members to remember that there used to be Greens in this place years ago who actually would hold Simon Corbell to account when he misled. They actually would, because I believe he was censured in the first term of the Stanhope government when there were eight Labor members. The only way to censure him then was for every non-Labor member to vote in favour of such a motion. He was censured for the persistent and wilful misleading of the Assembly. So we used to have Greens who would hold him to account. We have seen that standard over the last few years now, and particularly in this term, where no matter what is said by this minister—

Mr Barr: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I again draw your attention to standing order 62 and tedious repetition of arguments put by members in this debate.

MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Mr Hargreaves): Thank you very much, Mr Barr. Mr Seselja, standing order 62 talks about tedious repetition. Mr Hanson in his speech gave a litany of argument around Mr Corbell’s history. Mr Smyth has done the same thing and I have detected so far in your speech that you have been doing it also. I uphold the point of order and I would ask you, please, Mr Seselja, to introduce something new into the debate.

MR SESELJA: So which part was tedious repetition? Maybe Mr Barr could point us to which part was tedious repetition, given he has raised the point of order.

MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Thank you very much, Mr Seselja. Please resume your seat.


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