Page 4909 - Week 11 - Thursday, 21 October 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
We have got great people doing a good job here and we need to back them up. Having Sheedy as the coach is great. He has already spoken in Canberra a number of times. He understands about country sport. He understands about regional sport. He can rattle off the names from Canberra and the surrounds who have come through the grades and gone on to great things, initially in Melbourne when it was all played in Melbourne, and now around the country in the various teams. It is an opportunity that we should grab. It is an opportunity that we should do everything in our capacity as individual members here to support. We should encourage the minister to support it and we should encourage the city to support the GWS bid for the ACT.
MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ms Le Couteur): The time for this discussion has expired.
Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Bill 2010
[Cognate bill:
Climate Change (Greenhouse Gas Emission Targets) Bill 2008 (No 2)]
Clause 7.
Debate resumed.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (4.24): I rise to speak to the amendment that Mr Seselja moved before lunch, which seeks to cut the proposed reduction target from 40 per cent to 30 per cent. The Greens will not be supporting this amendment. We chose to support the 40 per cent target because it is based on science. It is based on the best possible evidence of what this planet needs us as the inhabitants to do.
I heard Mr Seselja calling across the chamber at Mr Corbell earlier about it being some magic number. In fact, it is a number that is actually in science. It is in the Bali climate negotiations. It is in a series of scientific papers. It is the best possible science that we have. What the science is telling us is that it is the appropriate target to be aiming for in order to prevent dangerous climate change. It is scientifically based.
It contrasts with Mr Seselja’s number. He has plucked out of the air 30 per cent and is running this extraordinary line that 40 per cent is going to ruin us all but 30 per cent will be okay. It was a shame I had to speak after Mr Corbell because he spent some time pointing out the fraudulent nature of Mr Seselja’s argument and I think he summed that up quite well. I think it is worse than that. I think Mr Seselja is putting forward a deceitful argument where he is trying to convince the community of Canberra—
Mr Seselja: On a point of order, Madam Assistant Speaker, I know that Mr Rattenbury is feeling fired up but it is not appropriate for Mr Rattenbury to be calling me deceitful. I think that, particularly as the Speaker, he would know this. We get called to order for much less in this place. I would ask you to ask him to withdraw it.
Mr Hargreaves: On the point of order, Madam Assistant Speaker, my reading of what Mr Rattenbury was saying was that it was the argument that was deceitful and not Mr Seselja.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video