Page 4931 - Week 11 - Thursday, 21 October 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Mr Seselja: On the point of order, Madam Assistant Speaker, Mr Hanson was finishing a sentence. There has been a lot of discussion about whether people are blindly following ideology as part of this debate or whether it is based on reason. He was halfway through his sentence. It is very difficult for you to know what his conclusion was going to be as a result of that. I think he might be allowed to finish what he was saying.
Mr Corbell: He has not yet addressed the amendment. In no way has he addressed the amendment; he probably does not even know what it is.
MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Mr Hanson, please direct your remarks—
MR HANSON: The point is that I have been facing a number of interjections and I have been responding to those interjections. I will try to continue, ignoring Mr Rattenbury’s interjections. The point is that there is a decision to be made about what is the right balance. This is an issue that we have agreed that we need to deal with here in the ACT. The Liberal Party has taken a strong stance, and it has done for a number of years.
It is an issue of balance and it is an issue of making sure, as we look towards the future on this issue, that we are achieving balance between what is achievable, affordable and realistic. The figure of 30 per cent is a far more sensible figure. It is far more achievable. It is actually affordable, and I think it is a more judicious figure—one that has probably got a far better chance of being achieved in the end, despite the rhetoric from the government and the Greens. The figure that we are proposing is eminently sensible.
Some of the barbs that have been thrown in the interjections from Mr Corbell and Mr Rattenbury, and in the speeches they have made, have been most unreasonable. There has been leadership by the Canberra Liberals for a number of years on this issue. The fact that we have set a very ambitious but affordable target should be commended rather than—
Mr Corbell: How much will it cost?
MR HANSON: Always less than 40 per cent, Mr Corbell. I think that is the point—always less than 40 per cent. The point is that these costs are likely to be exponential, because there are certain things that you can do that are affordable measures that—
Mrs Dunne: We’ll tell you the day you tell the people of the ACT what your scheme will cost.
MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Mrs Dunne and Mr Corbell, please stop interjecting. Mr Hanson, you have the floor.
MR HANSON: Thank you. There are obviously going to be significant costs associated with doing this that can be borne, and will need to be borne, by members of the ACT community. It is a matter of what level of costs we are prepared to accept.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video