Page 1449 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 24 March 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
submission on what you perceived were the problems with the feed-in tariff? You said nothing. Your words are hollow; your words are simply political rhetoric designed to win a cheap vote—simple as that.
The feed-in tariff grows jobs. It grows diversification of the economy. You can look at that in every country that has a feed-in tariff around the world. In every jurisdiction that has a feed-in tariff around the world, it grows jobs, it grows investment, it supports research and it creates the clean economy we want for the future.
The government will not be supporting Mr Seselja’s amendment, for the reasons that I have outlined. The important thing is that we have a framework for the development of an energy concessions regime into the future that recognises the need to maintain equity, the need to address the impact on low income households and on vulnerable energy customers. That is what Labor’s motion seeks to achieve.
MR SMYTH (Brindabella) (7.52): It is interesting to hear Mr Corbell admit that some middle income families are at risk. But when Mr Corbell is presented with the opportunity to include those middle income families and vulnerable energy customers in this motion to minimise the impact on them, he will not support it. I wonder whether Mr Corbell, who prides himself on his logic, has actually read what Mr Seselja has said.
Mr Hanson: He’s such a goosey.
MR SMYTH: He is such a goosey. I will read it for Mr Corbell:
… ensure that the financial impact of clean energy policy on low and middle income and vulnerable energy customers is minimised …
So admit that middle income earners will be affected, but when the opportunity comes to protect them you vote against it. I will read it again. I will even read it a bit slower so that Mr Corbell can take this in:
… ensure that the financial impact of clean energy policy on low and middle income and vulnerable energy customers is minimised …
I am not sure what is wrong with that. I am not at all sure what the argument is. It is interesting. Mr Corbell actually did not have an argument. So you go the standard route, which is to blame the Liberal Party for all the evils of the world. You then castigate us for doing exactly what you did in opposition, which was not put in submissions on government papers and discussions.
In the time that Mr Corbell was in opposition, I do not recall that he ever put a submission in. He can correct me; he can go and dig them out of his archive and table all the submissions he put in. Having the pot stand up and call the kettle black is the basis of debates and the most hypocritical of debating techniques. We see that from Mr Corbell all the time.
I challenge him to simply go away and get all the submissions. Go and find one submission that the Labor Party put into anything that we asked for submissions on.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video