Page 1129 - Week 03 - Thursday, 26 February 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Most of these amendments could have been made before the last election if the government had had the will to do so. But they did not really have the will. They were dragged kicking and screaming onto Mick Gentleman’s scheme, and the biggest sceptic was the Chief Minister; he was in the paper saying how sceptical he was and on the radio saying how sceptical he was when Mr Gentleman first floated the idea. Then, afterwards, he became the great hero of the revolution. But that was pretty much revisionist history, which is what you expect from the Labor Party.
Let us get it right. Let us get part B right. That is why we did not go down the path of making amendments in this area and we cannot support the Greens’ amendments.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment, Climate Change and Water, Minister for Energy and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (4.58): There has been a lot of political positioning by Mr Rattenbury and the Liberals in this debate and I am not going to try and counter that further because I think that people will see that for what it is.
I simply want to respond to some of the concerns raised by Mr Rattenbury in relation to the figures that I quoted earlier. I do stand by these figures, and the reason I do that is that the advice that I have from my department is that the 25 per cent figure is as advised to us by a range of industry and other experts, including experts from the ANU. I should say that 25 per cent equates to about six hours of generation capacity or optimum activity. The ANU advised us that it was eight hours; others advised us it was 5½ hours. The figure of 25 per cent I am advised was provided to us by the Australian and New Zealand Solar Energy Society, so there is a reasonable basis for these figures, Mr Rattenbury, and it is on that basis that I use them. So I would ask you to reflect on that.
I am pleased that Mr Rattenbury has confessed and said that this was basically a political ambit; they do not really mean to allow the 0.75 of the premium rate or any level of generation capacity above 30 kilowatts from 1 July; it is really just a political ambit to pressure the government. Okay, at least that is on the table now: it is a political ambit to pressure the government.
The Liberals perhaps are adopting a more logical position in that they say, “Yes, we want the pressure on the government as well, but we do not think it is appropriate to endorse a measure that says 0.75 of the premium rate is available for anything over 30 kilowatts.”
As I said to both Mr Seselja and Mr Rattenbury, if either of the non-government parties in this place are unhappy with the performance of the government on this matter, you have got a rock-solid guaranteed insurance policy: you come into this place and you move an amendment there and then to change the cap. That is your insurance policy. That is the way you can make sure that the government, if you are concerned about it, is acting in the way that you think we should be acting. That is your insurance policy. Just go and move an amendment at the time that you have decided that action from the government is not sufficient. But this move is a political ambit, it is potentially reckless and it is not something the government can support.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .