Page 3035 - Week 07 - Thursday, 30 June 2011

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

---

MR SESELJA (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (4.33): I think the minister is being very ungracious. He is being ungracious because we are fixing his mess. I think maybe just a simple thank you would be in order—a simple thank you. What he should be saying today is: “Look, I have stuffed it up. I have set up a scheme that was unsustainable. Industry suffered. There have been all sorts of upheaval as a result. Consumers are paying too much. Thank you for doing your best to fix my mess.”

That is what he should be saying but instead, in his ungracious way, he is saying, “Your fixing of my mess is not good enough.” In arguing that, he is arguing in a completely illogical way, Madam Assistant Speaker. His argument against this amendment is that if we support this amendment—he said this right at the start of his speech—it will lead to a rush.

I am not sure if Mr Corbell has read this amendment. What this amendment does is to actually reduce the premium rate. I would have thought that if you wanted a rush you would normally increase the premium rate, as he did with his 45c. That is what causes a rush. If you take it from 45 to 34 or 34 to 30, that is less likely to cause a rush, because it is a longer payback period.

So the minister does not actually understand the clause he is debating. He is either ignorant of it or he is choosing to wilfully misrepresent it. Either way, he is getting it wrong. What we are doing in seeking to fix this mess is to lower the rate. That is what this clause is about. If Mr Corbell wants to vote against this clause, he is voting for a higher rate. He will be voting for a higher rate if he votes against this clause because this clause lowers the rate.

Arguing black is white is not going to make it so. That is what Mr Corbell has sought to do here. I make it really simple for Hansard and for Mr Corbell: this clause will lower the rate. That will lead to less of a rush. That will lead to a more sustainable scheme than what we have at the moment. That is a better outcome and I think that any sensible person in this chamber would therefore support such a clause.

Question put:

That Mr Seselja’s amendment be agreed to.

The Assembly voted—

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.

---

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