Mr BAYLEY (Clark) – Honourable Speaker, I rise to talk to this seeking of leave. We will support the seeking of leave as is convention. We look forward to the debate and we will listen to the debate closely. A no confidence motion is an incredibly serious motion to put to this House and we take that seriously. We do look forward to the debate and at face value, a debate about this at the very least is justified.
In going to the motion and the notion of a 20 per cent increase, we have been looking for an explanation about the baseline of that – since when and says who have costs increased. We note that the Leader of the Opposition and opposition members have repeatedly raised the contribution of Ray Mostogl from the energy sector this morning. We do not have that transcript, so if anyone could find that, that would be useful for us. We have not heard that interview. Contrary to what the member who just took his seat said, I do not believe that the Chamber of Commerce and Industry statement, which we have seen, directly refutes the minister and his claim around 20 per cent.
I am not trying to excuse the minister. I am making the point that I do not know that the statement directly refutes him. It certainly makes the argument that the major industrials are under pressure, and I acknowledge that, but it is not necessarily a direct refutation of the minister’s claims. We do have concerns about energy. There are significant energy problems, and when it comes to the major industrials, yes, the agenda of the government and indeed the opposition is of serious concern.
I know it is not considered one of the major industrials necessarily, but a major industrial is Grange Resources in the north‑west of the state. They have been told that their transmission costs as a result of Marinus will increase by 29.6 per cent, I understand, certainly just over 29 per cent. The cable across Bass Strait and indeed the transmission lines come with significant cost, not only to the taxpayer and business, but also a cost to the environment and to the community.
There is a lot of pressure and concern about those going forward. We saw some of that reported in today’s media – on the ABC, in a national story, no less – about how transmission is a serious concern for communities. The minister definitely has some issues to answer, and the Liberal government definitely has a policy position that is not only putting pressure on the major industrials but on the community and the environment as well.
We will certainly support the seeking of leave.
We are looking forward to hearing this debate and it seems we do have time as well. We do have time because the business of the House is in absolute shambles. I echo the Leader of Opposition Business saying to have the blue updated just before 9.00 a.m. with business put on it and then business taken off it. We still have certainly the Community Protection Offender Reporting Amendment Bill. I understand there are extensive briefings being proposed by the police about that because it is a significant piece of legislation.
What do we get instead? We get this weak, this rhetorical, this factual incorrect motion about native forest logging. I acknowledge this is government business. The government can choose what to do with their government business time and it is completely in their right to bring forward a motion. I do not criticise you in that context, leader, but the government business should be dealing with legislation. We should be dealing with legislation and it is an indictment on this government that they are having to plug holes in the business of the day and keep us here by debating a ridiculous native forest motion and, again, we had a sum total of one bill tabled yesterday and another single bill tabled today. The business of the House is in absolute shambles. Despite the fact that that is happening, it is very clear that we have got a stadium bill coming that is going to ignore facts of the matter in terms of the serious planning complications around this stadium.
Dr Gruen did not talk about some of the contamination and the traffic and other issues, but the planning commission has. We are going to be asked to rubberstamp a stadium in a bill that we, collectively, have no expertise to offer an opinion on.
