Page 1928 - Week 05 - Thursday, 3 May 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
body.” So he was implying that he was referring to an individual as opposed to the collective.
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Rattenbury, I invite you to withdraw.
MR RATTENBURY: Mr Coe may well be correct, in which case I am happy to withdraw. I certainly was not intending a personal reference.
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr Rattenbury. You still have the floor.
MR RATTENBURY: That issue aside, what this comes down to is the ability to work on the detail of legislation, to be willing to make a serious contribution in this place, and to have a decent understanding of what is going on. Mr Seselja’s media release on this issue this morning highlights that simple lack of understanding. I quote from the latter part of the press release in which he says:
Regular households, the main contributors of this scheme, would receive little of the benefits but will pay the price.
Aside from the grammatical crimes in that sentence, it is actually incorrect. All you have to do is go to page 9 of the regulatory impact statement as one example. It shows the ACT sources of greenhouse gas emissions, and it highlights in different colours—it is really straightforward—residential electricity and non-residential electricity. Whilst the specific numbers are not indicated on the graph, clearly a larger segment comes from non-residential electricity. Without even having to go to the figures you can see that more electricity is consumed by the non-residential sector than by the residential sector. The minister has indicated the figure of 60 per cent being the electricity consumed by the non-residential sector. So when the press release talks about regular households being the “main contributors of this scheme”, that simply cannot be the case because they do not buy the most electricity. The minister has elaborated on that point.
A bit of honesty from Mr Seselja would be a good thing in this debate—a bit of honesty and an ability to acknowledge some of the positives in this scheme. In the entire press release and in his entire speech Mr Seselja failed to acknowledge the potential benefits to the community under this scheme. That is in real contrast to the new Liberal National Premier of Queensland—
Mrs Dunne: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, Mr Rattenbury in his comments about Mr Seselja’s comments in this debate today and in his press release said that that required a little bit of honesty. That is a reflection upon Mr Seselja as a member and is unparliamentary. I ask you to ask Mr Rattenbury to withdraw.
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Rattenbury, that is bordering on imputation there. I think you might need to withdraw that.
MR RATTENBURY: I will withdraw and reword the sentence for the comfort of those opposite: I think this entire debate would be a more honest one if Mr Seselja were able to tell the full story. And I draw on the—
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video