Estimates Debate — Vote Energy

I have a simple challenge for the Minister in the chair, the Hon Harry Duynhoven, concerning his last speech. He told Parliament that there had been a reduction in the dependence on coal under his Government. He gave crocodile tears about the future of the country and the need for there to be progress on climate change. Well, I ask him to deny these simple figures from the Ministry for Economic Development. The figures say that in 2000, 1,533 gigawatt hours of power were produced from coal. They say that for the latest year 5,119 gigawatts were produced from coal. Well, 1,533 to 5,119 does not sound like a decrease to me. It is actually a threefold increase. So how can the Minister in the chair credibly say to this Committee that the Government is focused on climate change and saving the future when there has been a threefold increase in the amount of electricity produced from coal? It sounds like a crock, I say to the Minister. It sounds as if he is misleading the Committee. It sounds totally inconsistent.

💬 Hon Harry Duynhoven: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I have every expectation this will be a robust debate, but I am not going to sit here and take being told by that member that I have misled the Committee. That is not the case and I take exception to that.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The point of order is, I think, that it is part of the debate, and we will leave it at that. The time has come for this debate to be concluded.

I again seek leave to table the Government’s own electricity generation—

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I am sitting only less than 6 feet from the member who sought leave to table that document. It was not possible for me to determine what that document was about when you put that leave to the Committee. I know the Speaker has made it clear that she does not want members to go into long details about documents, but if the process of tabling documents is to have any meaning at all, members must know what the document is about. There was no way we could have known what that document was about when you cut off the member’s description of it.

There was a very good way of knowing what it was about, and that was to listen to his colleague. He stood up and said he was going to seek leave again—it is not technically possible but we have decided to agree—and he told us in his previous contribution what exactly it was that he was tabling. We agree with it and are very happy for it to be tabled.

In the spirit of cooperation, I seek leave again, also, to table the document I tried to table before—the 15 pages of Government initiatives with climate change benefits.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

The question was put that Vote Energy, Vote Lands, Vote Customs, Vote Youth Development, Vote Statistics, Vote Consumer Affairs, Vote National Archives, Vote National Library, Vote Community and Voluntary Sector, Vote Foreign Affairs and Trade, Vote Official Development Assistance, Vote Racing, Vote Revenue, the preamble, clauses 1 to 12, and schedules 1 to 7 be agreed to.