Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2010 Week 04 Hansard (Wednesday, 24 March 2010) . . Page.. 1448 ..

costs to them are minimised. But the particular area of emphasis when it comes to the delivery of concession arrangements, which is what this motion is about—it is about the concessions regime—must be on low income earners and vulnerable energy customers.

The government will not accept the proposition from the Liberal Party that this means that we do not care about middle income families. That is not what this motion is about. This motion is about the concessions regime, and the concessions regime must be targeted at low income households and vulnerable energy customers.

Are the Liberal Party suggesting that the concession regime be expanded to a far larger number of energy customers? If they are, I would be interested to hear how they propose to pay for that and at what level they determine that middle income ceases and high income commences. That would be interesting to hear as well. What is it, Mr Seselja? Where do middle income earners end? Where do middle income earners end, given that the average income here in Canberra is higher than the national average income nationally? Where does middle income end, Mr Seselja? That is the question for you, Mr Seselja.

Mr Seselja: You do not want to minimise the impact?

MR CORBELL: You have had your turn, Mr Seselja. You have had your turn, and you have been heard in silence. Mr Seselja, where does middle income end?

I also heard that Mr Seselja argued that the feed-in tariff does not deliver the outcomes the community wishes in terms of the cost on the community. I would simply put this to the Liberal Party, because they failed to understand it today. We hear Mr Smyth stand up in this place time and time again and talk about the need to diversify the economic base of this territory, talk about promoting new industries in this city that will create jobs, new economic activity and new investment in new industries. What does the feed-in tariff do? It grows jobs. It grows jobs in the economy. It grows new investment in new technologies. And it grows the deployment of new economic activity.

Here we have the hypocrisy of the Liberal Party. At one level they say that Labor does nothing to diversify economic activity. And when the feed-in tariff does just that, they oppose it. They oppose that measure. The fact is that the feed-in tariff grows jobs. Read the analysis the government has commissioned in this regard. It grows jobs. Then the challenge is to lock in that growth over the long term. There need to be measures to lock in that economic diversification in the long term through a range of other measures. This is identified in the government’s analysis on the feed-in tariff and options for expansion. It is also identified in our draft energy policy.

Which party in this place have not made a contribution to either of those papers? The Liberal Party. Not a single considered word from them in the development of that policy. The Greens put forward their views. If Mr Seselja says that he is such a strong champion of the problems with the feed-in tariff, why did he not say anything when we invited public comment on it? There is nothing to stop you making comment on it. If you felt so strongly about it, why didn’t you stop being lazy and actually make a

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video