Mike Symon (Deakin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. Will the minister outline the consultation the government is undertaking on its proposal to introduce a carbon price that will cut pollution and drive investment in clean energy? How has this been received and what is the government's response?

Greg Combet (Charlton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Deakin for his question. Since the government established the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee, the government has undertaken extensive consultation with various community representatives, roundtables and working groups with the business community dealing with the issue of jobs and the competitiveness in the trade-exposed parts of the economy and with energy security. Working groups and roundtables have met many times on those issues. Similarly groups involving non-government organisations dealing with matters as broad as energy efficiency, household assistance and environmental issues have also met many different times. The Climate Commission has been established and conducted a number of community fora so far, as says Professor Garnaut, and the government has consulted numerous other community organisations and repres­entatives. Many people have expressed views—prominent economists, religious leaders, business representatives, all supportive of carbon pricing through a market mechanism. And of course the Productivity Commission has done an extensive inquiry. So the government has engaged in extensive consultation. It has been widespread and it has been genuine.

This stands in stark contrast to the approach that has been taken and is represented by the conduct of the coalition. All we see from the Leader of the Opposition are stunts. The latest one is the proposition for a plebiscite. There is no genuine consultation or commitment to consult genuinely with anyone on the other side of the chamber, not even members of his own front bench, as we understand it. Almost as soon as this stunt was announced in the News Ltd papers, on the front page of the tabloids, the Leader of the Opposition indicated that he would ignore the outcome, he would not accept the outcome. He puts up the stunt in the News Ltd tabloids and immediately disowns a potential outcome, saying he will not pay any regard to it. The Leader of the Opposition is so addicted to misrepresentation that he now continues to misrepresent his own position. He says he wants to listen to people and then says he does not care what the result is, he would not even do that.

They cannot even get the basic details right. As the Leader of the House said a short while ago, the News Ltd papers were announcing that at 10 am yesterday this bill was going to be introduced. They just forgot one small detail—parliament was not sitting at 10 am. Nothing emerged. The House was not going to sit till 2.30. It is nothing but a stunt at taxpayers' expense that is being proposed by the Leader of the Opposition.

There might be another reason that the Leader of the Opposition is attracted to this sort of approach. At various times, as we know, the Leader of the Opposition has advocated a carbon tax, then disowned a carbon tax; he has advocated an emissions trading scheme, then disowned an emissions trading scheme; he has advocated a market mechanism, then disowned a market mechanism. He has said he respects the science and then he says that the science is absolute crap. To cover all of the positions that the Leader of the Opposition has articulated, the plebiscite would have to be multiple choice. It would have to be a ballot paper the size of the Senate ballot paper to try and cover off all the silly positions that the Leader of the Opposition has had from time to time. In fact, what would be interesting would be to see the result of a ballot on the other side of the House, because we know there are plenty over there who agree with us, who want to tackle climate change and know our proposition is the best way to do it.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is directed to the member for Cunningham in her capacity as chair of the Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications. I refer the member to the likelihood that a carbon tax would lead to shutdowns of coalmines and steelworks in the Illawarra. I ask her has the infrastructure committee been requested by the government or does it intend to ask the government—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The Leader of the Nationals will resume his seat. Many people do not get to finish things and other people rise and I invite them to raise a point of order. The Leader of the House on a point of order.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Questions can indeed be asked of chairs of committees about inquiries they have been the chair of. There is precedent in the House for it occurring. What cannot be asked of chairs of committees is general policy outcomes. They can only talk about specific inquiries that the committee is undertaking.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Leader of the House. I will keep that in mind in adjudicating on whether this question is in order.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask the member for Cunningham: has the infrastructure committee been requested by the govern­ment, or does it intend to ask the government for a reference, to inquire into the impact of the carbon tax on the infrastructure needs of the Illawarra? If not, why not?

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The honourable members time has expired. Given that it is not a question about a matter before the committee, I rule it out of order.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I draw your attention—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The Leader of the Nationals, who is usually a bit better behaved, will wait until I give him the call. He has risen in his place. The Leader of the Nationals on a point of order.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I refer you to House of Representatives Practice (5th Edition), page 536, where it states that 'a question to a committee chair asking if the committee intended to inquire into a certain matter' has been permitted by a previous speaker. The case refers to a question by the member for Warringah at the time to the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee about whether or not an inquiry would be held. I submit, sir, that this question is indeed in order.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The Leader of the House will resume his seat. I have ruled that the question is out of order for multiple reasons, even beyond the fact that there is not a matter before the committee. The question was replete with argument. The member for Shortland has the call.

Honourable members interjecting—

Order! The member for Oxley. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, on the ruling that you have made in relation to the Leader of the Nationals' question, I direct you to the question that was asked on 16 October 1957 by Clyde Cameron.

Government members interjecting—

What is so funny about a precedent. Don't you understand what precedents are?

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Sturt will resume his seat and the member for Shortland will resume her seat. The Manager of Opposition Business with his point of order.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, again, I refer you to the precedent that was established in 1957 by a question from Clyde Cameron, the then member for Hindmarsh. The opposition today asked a question that is almost exactly in the same terms, without argument and without debate, about an intention to inquire into a matter by the relevant committee, in this case the infrastructure committee. Clyde Cameron's question was in exactly the same terms as the one that we have put. Therefore I put it to you that it is within order and I ask you to call the member for Cunningham.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If I may add to that point, if you look closely at the question asked by Mr Cameron you will also note that it includes quite a lot of preamble and reasons why an inquiry should in fact be held. I submit, therefore, that it is on very similar terms, though on a different subject, to the question I have just asked.

Opposition members interjecting—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hope that comment was not directed at the chair. People should be very careful if they are conversing with their colleagues that they do it in a much lower sotto voce, because sometimes it can be taken inappropriately. I have ruled on the question, because it goes beyond the intent of the standing order. By people's own admissions the fact that the last two words were 'why not' is not something that a chair could be asked.

Opposition members interjecting—

Order! If you want to read your precedents and you want to listen carefully to what I have now added—and I am not, given the circumstances, offering an opportunity to rephrase the question—if people go away and, based on what they believe to be precedents, they will understand that a question to a chair of a committee is a very narrow question. Regrettably—and I am not having a go at the Leader of the Nationals—like questioners and responders, they now think that the 45 seconds and the four minutes are the space to be filled. Often it would be much better if, in both cases, they were much shorter than those time periods.