Thank you, Mr. Chair. It’s been a good discussion. I’m not sure; I guess I would like to reply to Minister Miltenberger’s comments there. I don’t want to repeat everything. I think the obvious gains, the win-win-wins are clear here. This is not news to the Minister, so I know he is not surprised. We will be looking forward to how we can get this in the budget.

The Minister claims that people here are speaking against the subsidy. Clearly, that is not the case. There is a history here. The 16th Assembly, against

the wishes of many of us, made some really bad

decisions and left us with the consequence of having to pay these subsidies. It’s not that we shouldn’t be paying the subsidies, it’s we should have been pursuing alternatives to avoid having to pay these subsidies.

What some of us have been suggesting now is, last year for example, we paid about $17 million in subsidies. This year we are down to $9 million in addition to sort of our base subsidy levels. I won’t go into those numbers. I don’t want to scare people too much here. Why not put the difference between the $17 million that we used last year, or perhaps it is this fiscal year, and the $9 million the following year? That is a seven or eight million dollar difference. Why not put that money into energy initiatives that will actually start to address the problems that have caused these rates to soar? That is what we are on about here. We obviously haven’t got any choice, so we are suggesting that we do this modest program. I appreciate the Minister’s offer to work on this. I look forward to the results with a vote.

Again, I guess I can summarize by this is a no-brainer. It’s a win-win-win. Thank you.