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

I move:

That business intervening before notice No. 6, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent:

(1) the time and order of business for Tuesday, 11 October 2011 being as follows:

(a) the House shall meet at 9 a.m.;

(b) Government business shall have priority from 9 a.m. until 2 p.m.; and

(c) during the period from 9 a.m. until 2 p.m. any division on a question called for in the House, other than on a motion moved by a Minister during this period, shall stand deferred until the conclusion of the discussion of a matter of public importance; and

(2) any variation to this arrangement to be made only by a motion moved by a Minister.

I have done this at the earliest opportunity so that members can plan their day on 11 October 2011. It is open to the government on the first day of sitting to simply have the Prime Minister write to the Speaker to alter the time of sitting, but I think that would not be as convenient as notifying the House now and the House making the decision for itself. This will simply replicate the process that occurred so effectively yesterday morning in order to facilitate members' opportunity to participate in the clean energy legislation debate.

The motion I have moved would mean that the House, upon rising tomorrow, would commence at 9 am, that government business would have priority from 9 am until 2 pm and that during the period from 9 am to 2 pm any division would be deferred until after the MPI. It also provides for any variation to this arrangement to be made only on a motion moved by a minister, as is normal practice.

I note that the opposition spoke against this proposition yesterday and the Manager of Opposition Business indicates he will again today. Even when they know it is the right thing to do they cannot resist saying no. No matter what, they cannot resist saying no, even when they participate in the debate, as they did yesterday morning, and even though this is far preferable to sitting later at night, which is the other possibility. Once again, we could negate the adjournment, as we did last night. I note that the opposition's enthusiasm for debating the Parliamentary Budget Office waned after 10.30 pm. The member for Mackellar perhaps set a record for being interjected upon from her own side. The fact is this is a far preferable motion to go forward.

It is important to note that we have already had 28 hours of debate on the clean energy legislation. The member for Rankin asked me how that compares to previous debates. I indicate to the member for Rankin that the Work Choices debate went for 22 hours in total—from go to whoa—and took eight days. This legislation will have a month of discussion, proper consideration and a proper joint parliamentary committee that will report on 7 October. There have been 28 hours of debate so far and 99 speakers. The next speaker will be the hundredth, the ton, speaker on this legislation. Of those 99 speeches, 54 of them have been from the opposition because the government has been determined to ensure that every member has an opportunity to speak. We are particularly looking forward to the contribution from the member for Wentworth, who has indicated how consistent this plan is with the CPRS and other positions that have been put forward.

The fact is that we already had on 13 September one hour and 51 minutes of debate and then two hours and 40 minutes. On 14 September there were four hours and 45 minutes and then two hours. On 15 September we had one hour and 43 minutes and then one hour and 14 minutes. On 19 September we had one hour and 39 minutes and then one hour and 48 minutes. On 20 September there were four hours and 55 minutes and then two hours and 14 minutes, and so far today we have had three hours and 23 minutes. After this, we will have further contributions from both sides of the House. Certainly it is the case that there are more members wishing to speak on this debate than there is time available today or tomorrow in terms of the ability of all members to make a contribution. We look forward to people being able to participate in this debate. We know what those opposite will say.

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No!

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

They will say no, as they say no to all the big reforms, as they have said no to common decency today in the way that they behaved, as they said no to each other during the debate last night when they were trying to jump between the shadow Treasurer and the shadow finance minister, competing against each other. Really, it was quite an extraordinary performance on the floor of the House last night.

What we are doing here is showing once again the commitment of this government to transparency. We are showing once again the commitment of this government to ensuring full democratic participation in the processes of the House. We have indicated our commitment—unlike any example that can be pointed to by any of those opposite—by giving one month's notice of when the vote will be held on the second reading, on 11 October, and when the vote will be held for the final determination in the House of Representatives on this clean energy legislation, on 12 October.

This is vital legislation for Australia. It is vital that we are able to have full scrutiny of what this package means not just for the transition to a carbon constrained economy in a way that is efficient and market based, one that produces the best outcomes in terms of productivity and jobs, but also for the package of legislation that will provide support for pensioners and low- and middle-income earners, assistance for industry, and support for renewable energy and for the Steel Transformation Plan. This is a comprehensive package. We want to ensure that everyone can participate in the debate and, hence, I commend the motion to the House. I am sure that the Manager of Opposition Business does nothing but oppose, but the fact is that we on this side of the House have a positive vision not just for ourselves but for generations to come. Those opposite just say no.

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

( We are in the ludicrous position of debating a motion in this House this afternoon to extend sitting hours in order to give enough time to debate the carbon tax package of bills at the same time as we are operating under a debate management motion which gags the debate. The Leader of the House has created a complete mess all of his own making. At first, all hairy-chested, he came into the chamber and added a gag motion to the Notice Paper, which we debated and the government passed after some time; a gag motion to cut off debate on the carbon tax legislation on 11 October and then have three hours of consideration in detail to debate 19 bills. The only opportunity that the parliament will have to question the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency will be the consideration in detail stage, and the government has reduced that to three hours of debate. Then on 12 October the third reading on these 19 bills will be held, gagging the most important change to our economy since Federation.

The government did that and then discovered something. They felt the heat from the opposition, from the press gallery and from the public. They were denying members the opportunity to properly debate the most significant change to our economy in 111 years. They were giving members one minute per bill per member. There are over 1,000 pages of legislation—19 bills—not counting the explanatory memoranda, and they had reduced members of parliament to one minute of debate per bill. Having felt the heat over that very foolish decision in the first place—and, I might add the crossbenches supported that very bad, antidemocratic, jackbooted democracy—they came in here and added hours to yesterday's sitting schedule, from 9 am to 2 pm, in order to give members more time to debate the legislation. Then they discovered that that was still not enough time. So while we are still operating under a gag motion, the Leader of the House has come in here this afternoon and moved another motion to add more time on 11 October from 9 am until 2 pm in order to give members more time to debate this legislation.

The opposition does not oppose the prospect of more time to debate the carbon tax legislation. This is legislation that needs to be debated up hill and down dale. It needed to go to a committee. It needed to have a specialist House inquiry into the package of legislation. The government has decided not to do that, and I will get to that point in a moment.

The primary objection that the opposition have to this motion to extend sitting hours to allow more debate on the carbon tax bills is that we should not be in this House in the first place debating this carbon tax legislation. The government has no mandate to introduce a carbon tax in Australia. The government has no mandate to introduce 19 bills, of over 1,000 pages, to make the most significant economic change in our country's history. It has no mandate to do it and we should not be here debating this legislation.

While we will acquiesce to more time on the sitting schedule because oppositions always prefer to have more time rather than less time, and we on this side of the House particularly take our responsibilities very seriously, the member for Higgins will outline some Victorian members of parliament who have refused to debate this carbon tax legislation, and other members might also choose to do so. The Leader of the House mentioned one member of the opposition. Yesterday the government, out of the shame and embarrassment of having no mandate to introduce carbon tax legislation, were pulling their speakers off the speakers list. They were taking their speakers off the speakers list because their members could not even shamefacedly come into the House and defend this legislation.

The government like to stand up here and say that they are doing the same thing with the carbon tax that John Howard did with the goods and services tax. That is another one of the government's great mistruths, another one of their great falsehoods. The Prime Minister did not get away with it when she first announced that she was not going to keep her promise that there would be no carbon tax under any government she led—the promise she made six days before the election. First of all she said, 'I'm doing exactly the same as John Howard did over the goods and services tax.' That line did not last from lunchtime until Lateline. That is what she tried to get up.

Let us look at what happened under the Howard government on the goods and services tax. John Howard did change his mind about the goods and services tax and he changed it in very good time before the election that was coming in 1998. He announced he had changed his mind. He held an election in 1998 on the issue of a goods and services tax. He won that election and he received a mandate for a goods and services tax. He introduced legislation into this House. That legislation sat on the table for a week, as it should, to give members time to digest the extraordinary number of pieces and pages of legislation.

It then went through the committee process, as it should. There were three months of committee inquiries into the goods and services tax legislation package. The member for Higgins was a central part of the government at the time, as she was working for the Treasurer, Peter Costello. Three months of committee inquiries were held into the goods and services tax and then the legislation came into this parliament and was properly debated after the inquiries were completed. The consideration in detail stage was not truncated. The legislation was voted on and passed by this House.

That is the process that any government that wants to be honest and straight with the Australian people would have adopted. This government, on the other hand, came into the parliament, truncated the Selection Committee process and refused to allow this package of 19 bills to be split and sent to the five specialist House committees that were specifically established as part of the so-called new paradigm between the crossbenchers, the opposition and the government. It refused to allow those committees to inquire into this package of legislation. Having truncated the Selection Committee process, it established a kangaroo joint select committee. The vast majority of members on that committee believe in a carbon tax. It is completely out of sync with the representation that exists in this parliament. The opposition has a greater number of members in both houses than the Labor Party, yet the government established a committee of 14 members with five members of the opposition and nine members from the crossbenches, the Greens and the Labor Party. Nine of those members believe in a carbon tax and five do not. So it established a kangaroo joint select committee to inquire into these bills. It started the debate in this House before that joint select committee had even begun to meet. It started the debate before the inquiry had reported. It also started the debate even before the first meeting of the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Clean Energy Future Legislation.

We should not be here debating this legislation at all. The experience under the Howard government was very different. The member for New England, who is a personal friend of mine while being a political foe at this time, laughs. I believe the member for New England, along with 148 other members of this House, went to the last election campaigning against a carbon tax—149 out of the 150 members in this place did not go to the last election promising a carbon tax. The coalition said we would not have a carbon tax. The Prime Minister said there would not be a carbon tax under any government she led. The Treasurer said that suggestions that there would be a carbon tax in a Labor administration were ludicrous, hysterical and fanciful. The only member of this place who can stand here with any integrity and say that they campaigned to have a carbon tax is the member for Melbourne. That is why, out of the 150 members, 149 know in their heart of hearts that we should not be extending sitting hours for debate on the carbon tax bills, because we should not be having this carbon tax written into our legislation at all.

The Leader of the Opposition has quite rightly described this as the longest political suicide note in history. It will fall on the government's head on election day when the people cast their vote about whether they want to be represented by a government that promises them six days before an election that there will be no carbon tax and which reaffirmed that the day before, when the current Prime Minister said, 'I rule it out,' on Sky television with David Speers. The public will consider whether they want to be governed by a political party that could tell such a bald faced falsehood to the Australian people before an election in order to get elected and then change their mind 180 degrees after the election because it suited their purposes. In fact, the only mandate this government has is not to introduce a carbon tax. That is the only mandate this government has and their alliance partners should hang their heads in shame.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Manager of Opposition Business is straying greatly from the motion—

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

You have been very generous.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have been magnanimous beyond belief and I am drawing you back in now.

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

You have been very generous but let me say, getting back to the motion that is before the House, the motion before the House intends to extend sitting hours on 11 October to allow the House to sit from 9 am till 2 pm. We will support such an amendment but in doing so it is perfectly reasonable for us to make the political points that need to be made: No. 1, we should not be in this House even debating this legislation and No. 2, the government could have kept to the regular process for dealing with legislation in this House. They should not have needed to add sitting hours because they should not have gagged the debate in the first place. If there were no gag attached to this legislation, we would be able to deal with it in the normal course of events.

There is so much time on the schedule that the government placed before the parliament at the beginning of this year because the government has virtually no agenda. The government puts very little legislation into this parliament of any consequence and this is some of the most important legislation that they have ever put into the parliament. It is fair to say that this is a package of legislation that does have consequences. For that very reason it is the one package of legislation for which no gag motion should ever have been moved. There are many other pieces of legislation that this government have introduced which they trumpet as indicating that they are able to manage the House and pass legislation. But the one package of legislation that matters, the broken promise on the carbon tax, they chose to guillotine, to gag, to apply the order where the debate will finish at a specific time. That is why we should not need to have extra sitting hours because, if there had not been a gag, we would have been able to sit through the next sitting week and potentially the week after that and debate the carbon tax.

In fact, it is the opposition's contention that, if the government were worth its salt, it would have put this legislation on the table. It would have allowed it to go to the specialist committees of the House. They would have reported and then the debate could have begun. Let us not forget, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am sure you have not, that the carbon tax is not due to begin until 1 July 2012. It is not due to begin until the middle of next year. There is only one reason that the government wants this legislation passed by applying the gag motion on 11 and 12 October and that is because it wants it off the agenda by the end of this year. Some people—I am not one of them—think it is because it wants to get the carbon tax through before it changes the Prime Minister, before it changes the leader of the Labor Party back to the member for Griffith. Now I would not say that but some people have said that—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And you would not say it in this debate because it has no relevance.

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

It simply occurred to me that that might be one of the reasons that the government wants to gag this debate and why it now needs to add extra hours. It has made such a mess of the management of this parliament for the last four years and this motion only confirms what we all know, which is that this government never gets anything right.

Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As has so eloquently been put by the Manager of Opposition Business it is very clear that this motion that is before us today is nothing more than window-dressing; it is nothing more than a stunt because we know that the fact is this: this government has in practice gagged the debate. It has gagged the consideration that we can provide for the carbon tax bills and there are many bills—19 of them. Proper consideration would mean that every member of this House had an opportunity to fully explore those bills not only in the speeches that they present to the House, which should be more than one minute per bill, but also in the consideration in detail.

As the Manager of Opposition Business has said, this debate will finish on 11 October. Despite the motion that has been brought forward, there is going to be a gag on when these bills can be considered and 11 October is that drop-dead date. Only three hours have been set aside for consideration in detail. I was reflecting on the fact that there are many people in this place who should want to contribute to this debate. Certainly everyone on this side is very keen to contribute to this debate because they understand how important it is.

The Treasurer has said that this is one of the greatest economic reforms and that it will be absolutely transforming for our economy. We certainly agree with the latter part, which is that it will be transforming for our economy. It will be so transforming that it will send our jobs offshore and it will harm our economy irretrievably. But there are other members on the opposite side who should be interested in representing their communities, in standing up for the people that they claim to represent and in presenting speeches to this place as to why it is that they have joined the Prime Minister in breaking their election commitment not to bring in a carbon tax in this term of government. The fact that they have not taken these carbon tax bills to an election is a disgrace. I want to get on the record the members in Victoria who have not put their names down to speak on this motion. There are 12 of them I am sad to say. There is Michael Danby—who was in the chamber just before—the member for Melbourne Ports; Martin Ferguson, the member for Batman; Richard Marles, the member for Corio; Nicola Roxon, the member for Gellibrand—

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, on a perfectly predictable point of order I ask that the member refer to members by their seats rather than by their names. It is just a normal courtesy. If she is not prepared to do that then she should sit down.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Higgins should also be referring to the motion before the chair and, as we have had discussions about people's names being on or off lists, she should be perhaps a bit careful about whom she will identify.

Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I certainly would not wish to embarrass you, Deputy Speaker.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Higgins, I was giving her a pretty wide berth, but you were not listening to what I said about lists and how they do and do not appear. You might not want to completely embarrass yourself.

Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will refer only, then, to one notable name that is missing from the list. It is pretty understandable why, for instance, the member for Maribyrnong may not wish to speak on this bill. Bill Shorten, the member for Maribyrnong, is someone who has leadership aspirations.

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The member for Higgins has completely ignored your advice—that is, she is still referring to the names of members of parliament, not referring to them by their seats—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister will resume his seat. The member for Higgins did refer to the member's title as well. I understand the minister's point. The member for Higgins will refer to the motion before the chair.

Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We know the assistant Treasurer, the member for Maribyrnong, has leadership aspirations. We know that he covets the top job in this place. As the Prime Minister said in her speech when she tabled the carbon tax bills, 'We will be judged by history; we will be judged by what we say on this bill.' Of course, the member for Maribyrnong will also be judged. I think he is taking a long view of history; he is quite conscious of the fact that when he potentially decides to challenge the Prime Minister for her job—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Higgins needs to be relevant. I have given her a great deal of latitude, but this is beyond the pale. The member for Higgins has the call, and it would be terrific if we could wrap up a debate that we are all agreeing to.

Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I simply wanted to make the point that there are some in this place who are not keen to make their contribution known or to put their contribution on the record because they are concerned about being judged by history. We know that the motion before us is, as I have said before, a sleight of hand. It is window-dressing for the fact that this place is not being given due consideration of these bills before us. If we were able to properly consider these bills, we would in fact have a time that was not limited by gag, as it currently is. We know that the government is not very keen to have scrutiny of these bills. In fact, it has only just released economic modelling today, economic modelling that had to correct the previous figures: $20 a tonne was the initial modelling when it should have been $23 a tonne.

We understand that the government needed to correct its own figures with the modelling, but the problem here is that there are a number of other elements that we are very concerned about on our side. There has not been a proper opportunity to ask the government questions. That opportunity would come about through consideration in detail, and to limit consideration in detail to three hours is not acceptable. As the Leader of the House quite rightly said, this is a debate we should not be having, because the Prime Minister made a promise before the last election that there would be no carbon tax under the government she led. She has broken that promise. So the government does not want the scrutiny in this place; it wants to be able to ram through this legislation, faults and all, and the impact will be on the businesses and the people of Australia, who have had absolutely no say.

We here on this side of the House think that is a disgrace, and that is why we believe there should be a greater opportunity for debate. We believe this should have been taken to an election; it should still be taken to an election. I notice the member for New England has left the chamber—if there was true integrity about this debate then he too would support our calls for an election so the Australian people can decide.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Roads and Regional Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I join with the Leader of the House and the member for Higgins in making a couple of points on this motion before the House that the sitting hours be extended on 11 October, because I believe this legislation does need to be thoroughly examined. In this place, as members of the House of Representatives, we are in a very privileged position. I am sure all members agree with me. We are particularly privileged at the moment because at least we get to have a vote.

The people of Australia have been denied that democratic opportunity to have a vote in relation to the carbon tax, because this Prime Minister, in a fundamental breach of trust, told the Australian people just days before the last election, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' We can have the debate here about whether the Prime Minister is actually leading any government at all or whether it is Bob Brown, the Leader of the Greens.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Gippsland cannot have that debate because he is actually referring to the motion before the chair.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Roads and Regional Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My concern is that the government is not giving the Australian people the chance to have their say in the way that we are having our say through this motion to extend sitting hours. I would encourage members opposite, particularly regional members, whose electorates are at the absolute pointy end of the carbon tax debate to support this. It is their workers in the manufacturing sector and the dairy industry, and the average farm faces a $5,000 increase in its power bill. It is their workers in small business who are at the absolute pointy end of this carbon tax as it cascades through the entire economy.

I invite members opposite, particularly those regional members of parliament, to use this opportunity of extended sitting hours to stand up on behalf of the workers in their electorate. This is an opportunity for those opposite to demonstrate whether they still want to stand up for the workers of Australia or whether they are just going to be the lap-dogs of the Australian Greens. They can use these extended sitting hours to debate the merits of this tax on behalf of the people they were sent here to represent. Don't take orders from the Greens, don't take orders from a Prime Minister who is desperately trying to cobble together her leadership for the future: stand up on behalf of your constituents who are going to be at the pointy end of this carbon tax if it is introduced.

Make no mistake: the greatest threat to jobs in our traditional industries in regional Australia is the policies of the Australian Greens and this carbon tax. When you combine those two things you have an absolute recipe for disaster in our traditional industries right throughout regional Australia. In days gone by, there were members opposite in the Australian Labor Party who would use an opportunity like these extended sitting hours to actually stand up for the workers. I believe that the Labor Party of old was better than this. It was always better than this. This is the opportunity that is being presented to the Labor Party by the House with these additional sitting hours to discuss and debate the carbon tax. We can cut your ties with the Greens and you can start to become the party that actually believes in something. I remember that in the lead-up to the last election the Australian Labor Party believed in working families. We do not seem to hear much discussion about working families anymore. I do encourage those opposite to use these extended sitting hours to do something courageous and, as the Prime Minister invited you to, be on the right side of history and oppose this tax.

I also want to take up the contributions by the member for Higgins and the member for Sturt in relation to whether or not this motion should even be before the House and whether there should even be a debate about a carbon tax in this place at this time. This government does not have a mandate for this tax. In fact, as the member for Sturt pointed out, this government has a mandate for exactly the opposite. The overwhelming majority of members in this place—at least 148 and probably 149 members—campaigned in the last election against a carbon tax. Each of us achieved a mandate to oppose a carbon tax in the lead-up to that election. The only member who actually openly campaigned in support of a carbon tax, to the best of my knowledge, is the member for Melbourne. We all have a mandate; we all have a mandate to oppose this carbon tax. So I take the point from the member for Sturt and the member for Higgins in that regard. We really should not even be debating this motion, because this legislation would not even be before the House, if the government were true to its word and true to the mandate it received, however dubious it may be, from the Australian people.

For my final point I would like to take up a comment the Leader of the House made in his contribution to this debate. He said, 'Those opposite just say no'—

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's true.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Roads and Regional Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And so do the vast majority of Australians. The vast majority of Australians are saying no to your carbon tax, so the Leader of the House is right. You do not have to believe me. The Minister for Trade is interjecting; you do not have to believe me. I have here a sample. These are postcards that I sent out to my electorate to invite people to send Julia Gillard a message. I said, 'Here's your chance to tell Julia Gillard what you think about her carbon tax.' It is easy for us as members, because we can stand up here and make a speech and say what we want to say. The Australian people have been denied that right.

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is a procedural motion. It is pretty obvious that the member is now going to go into some substance in representing his electorate, which he is entitled to do, but maybe he should avail himself of the increase in the number of hours that has been provided through this motion, rather than rehearsing a speech—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister will resume his seat. The member for Gippsland needs to be relevant to the motion before the chair, and he is straying.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Roads and Regional Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am not surprised that the Minister for Trade would be sensitive about issues such as these, because he would have a pile—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Gippsland should not impugn motives. There is a procedural motion.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Roads and Regional Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. In conclusion, I simply make this point: those of us on this side of the House will support this extension of the sitting hours because it is an opportunity for members opposite to show some courage, to stand up for their electorates, to stand up for the workers in their electorates and actually start listening to the Australian people—people like the ones who have sent me 900 postcards opposing the carbon tax. Incidentally, there are 30 in favour of the carbon tax; I must be fair. This is an opportunity for those opposite to do what I have done and to canvass the views of their electorates and give them the opportunity to have their say, as I have done. It is an overwhelming mandate that I have received from the people of my community, where they have asked me to say no for a very good reason: their jobs are at stake. I encourage those opposite to use these extended sitting hours to show a bit of fortitude, to stand up for the workers they claim to represent, and to consider the impact that this tax will have on the working families who have been, to be blunt, treated appallingly by a government which has shown them no respect. In fact, the Leader of the House had the absolute temerity to describe people who complained about the carbon tax as being of no consequence. So I urge those opposite to redeem themselves with these extended sitting hours and actually start standing up for the people of Australia who expect them to give them a voice in this place.

Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The motion that I understand we are discussing is:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent:

(1) the time and order of business for Tuesday, 11 October 2011 being as follows:

(a) the House shall meet at 9 a.m.;

(b) Government business shall have priority from 9 a.m. until 2 p.m.; and

(c) during the period from 9 a.m. until 2 p.m. any division on a question called for in the House, other than on a motion moved by a Minister during this period, shall stand deferred until the conclusion of the discussion of a matter of public importance; and

(2) any variation to this arrangement to be made only by a motion moved by a Minister

The purpose of this is clear. It is to have the parliament sitting at a time when it would not ordinarily be doing so. For the purposes of enabling proper discussion of legislation and the consideration of the approach that might be taken to the administration of the proceedings of this chamber, all of our parties are known to have time reserved for meetings when a position can be determined. In the context of our two-party system, it is pretty fundamental that parties need time to deliberate on important matters that require consideration and to determine a position. Otherwise, we would come in here like headless chooks voting on a whole lot of issues in different ways. It might be interesting to some to have our parliament less certain than it is already with a hung parliament, but it seems to me that an essential part of the way we have evolved with our robust parliamentary system of democracy is to function within a two-party system, and it can only work if the parties are able to properly deliberate and consider matters that are coming before it. Traditionally that has always been done on Tuesday mornings; time is kept available for that purpose. This means that there is now the prospect that the chamber will be sitting at the same time that the party meetings are deliberating. That means you have to start to make choices. You may not, if you are here and wanting to contribute to this substantial question—and I am told it is a substantial question—of the various clean energy bills, be able to contribute. You will have to make a choice: do you go to the party room and participate? Is something considered there without their knowledge or contribution? There is the distinct possibility that you may be disenfranchised, prevented from participating fully in discussions that are of absolute importance.

It also says something about what we are discussing. While it is not referred to directly in the motion, the Leader of the House has made it clear that this is to deal with items 11 to 19 on the Notice Paper: Clean Energy (Unit Shortfall Charge—General) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge—Auctions) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge—Fixed Charge) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (International Unit Surrender Charge) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Charges—Customs) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Charges—Excise) Bill 2011, Clean Energy Regulator Bill 2011, Climate Change Authority Bill 2011 and Steel Transformation Plan Bill 2011. This is on top of items 1 to 10: Clean Energy Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Income Tax Rates Amendments) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Household Assistance Amendments) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Tax Laws Amendments) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Fuel Tax Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Customs Tariff Amendment) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Excise Tariff Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011 and Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment Bill 2011. I am reasonably satisfied that I have not missed any of the bills.

This tells you that this is an extraordinarily complex set of bills to implement a legislative proposal for a carbon tax. I have been in the parliament when we have considered substantial legislation that fundamentally changes our tax system. I was here in parliament when we considered legislation of this character, in terms of complexity and difficulty, and the likely impact that it is going to have on the Australian community—the broadly based consumption tax. That legislation, which was the subject of very considerable parliamentary debate and discussion, was not truncated by a guillotine that was going to fix when you were going to vote on the matter. It was given full and complete parliamentary scrutiny through the parliamentary committee system. This was legislation that had been clearly foreshadowed by a Prime Minister before an election and that the government re-elected would seek a mandate for and then enact. Even though there was a clear mandate from the Australian people after an election, this new set of legislative measures were the subject of very thorough parliamentary scrutiny. I think the legislation very much improved as a result. There were some changes. Those who were around at the time may remember that there were changes that related to the way food would be taxed. That was the subject of debate and dialogue and discussion; something that is being denied in the very way this legislation is proposed to be dealt with.

This is very substantial and significant legislation that is going to impact very significantly on the wellbeing of the broad Australian community and many people are going to be significantly prejudiced as a result of increased costs of living, particularly in relation to energy bills. These are matters about which they ought to be able to express their opinions and be heard. Members should not be denied the opportunity to express the views of their constituents on these substantial pieces of legislation.

While some of these measures might have been appropriate for grouping together, in my view there should have been separate debates in relation to the packages of legislation that is before us, rather than it being a cognate debate for something like 19 separate pieces of legislation. We have a situation in which we now know the parliamentary program that had been set aside was insufficient to allow every member to be able to participate in this debate. I find it most regrettable that very significant legislation which it is going to impact upon people's lives—their cost of living and the very way in which they conduct their businesses—is apparently not considered a matter that people ought to be able to bring to notice. Even in the last few days, I have come to know of people from my constituency, who are aware that there is to be a committee hearing and who know that it will not be long, making submissions to the parliamentary committee, and I am encouraging them to do so because I think their views ought to be heard. I would look for an opportunity to speak on this legislation again—I have already spoken on it—if I could, because I have heard from other constituents. For example, there is a gentleman who runs a dry-cleaning business, and the cost of power for his business has been increasing so significantly—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Berowra has been very relevant up to now, but this is a motion about—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He's explaining why we need more time.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If he—

Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, what I am trying to put to you and to my colleagues is that there are important issues that our constituents are raising with the climate change legislation, but the way it is being dealt with means that the opportunity to raise those issues is going to be severely constrained. That is the substantial concern than I have. If I wanted to raise the issue of my dry-cleaner friend who is now having to work through the night so that he can get his electricity at a cut rate and not put at risk the viability of his business—and I do not know what it is doing for his family life; I think his family life must be like that of a federal member of parliament who is still sitting here at 12 o'clock at night trying to consider legislation—

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was your fault.

Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think it is due to the way in which the government is organising the program. I have never seen a parliamentary program arranged in such an extraordinarily fractious way. The idea seems to be that you can set yourself a program and then, believing that you have to hold to the timetable, try to pretend by way of a fiction that people are going to have sufficient time to discuss legislation. I think that that is what this motion is about. We have now essentially put the parliament sittings at the very time when parliamentary parties would normally be having their party meetings. I have been here for a number of years—as of tomorrow, it will be 38 years—and I am struggling to recall a time when the government of the day has put on sittings when party meetings were held. I cannot say that it has never happened; only that I do not recall that having happened in the time that I have been here.

I hope that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, might be able to help protect all of us who are concerned that there ought to be proper time for deliberation on matters that are likely to come before this parliament and that we not be denied the opportunity here the debate on climate change legislation or have to make a choice about the consideration of all the other bills that might be considered by our parliamentary party meetings when we return. I notice that we are going to have to deal with the National Health Reform Amendment (Independent Hospital Pricing Authority) Bill, the Work Health and Safety (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill and the Corporations (Fees) Amendment Bill—and I am sure that there is a migration bill that we may need to have a look at again!

There is a range of matters which come before our parliamentary parties and which demand all of our attendance, and to put us into a situation where we have to make choices as to how we are going to carry out our functions diminishes our role as effective federal members of parliament. I do not like what is being proposed. I understand that we are not going to vote against it, but even so I think the principle is one that we ought not to give succour to. I hope that the Leader of the House will come and say, 'We realise now that we haven't really set aside sufficient time for the consideration of this very important legislation.' You could, in fact, if you wished to indicate that there should be proper discussion and that time should be available, extend the time for debate, and we could have the vote. It is not so imperative that it be done as proposed. You could extend the time of the committees—in fact, you could have a number of the committees that want to work at it dealing with the climate change legislation. I am sure that if parliamentary committees had the time to do that, members could help the government very considerably in improving the legislation—though I have some fundamental doubts about whether now is the time for us to be implementing legislation of this character.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In moving this motion to extend the amount of time available for debating the carbon tax legislation, the Leader of the House has shown once again hypocrisy of the government in that it has a built-in guillotine for the vote on these 19 bills while at the same time it pretends that it thinks there ought to be more time for debating the bills. The point made by the previous speaker was very sound. The point is that, when you get legislation which will have such a huge impact on people's lives, there ought to be proper time for scrutiny of those bills, which means that they should normally have been referred to the five specialist committees of the House and not the stitched-up kangaroo-court committee we have—which is dominated by Labor and the Greens—and that we should have been able to then reflect on the proper analysis that had been done by those five committees.

In the course of contemplating this motion I took the time to look at the agreement between the Australian Greens and the Australian Labor Party. Set out in this agreement between the Prime Minister and the Treasurer and Bob Brown, Christine Milne and Adam Brandt it says:

2. Principles

The Parties agree to work together to pursue the following principles:

(a) transparent and accountable government;

(b) improved process and integrity of parliament …

And yet these same Greens, who hold themselves up to be some sort of paragon, have agreed to a guillotine and are not allowing proper scrutiny of the bills that would be achieved, as I said, by them going to the appropriate specialty committees for proper analysis and report back to the parliament. In fact, what is happening is that the debate is being truncated and the bills will be sent off to a heavily biased committee which, no doubt, because of a lack of time that has been allowed for people to make submissions, will be very limited in truthfulness in its reporting of the way the Australian people feel.

On that point, it is quite interesting that only yesterday I met with a group of children from a school in my electorate. When we got to the question-and-answer time, the first question they asked was my opinion on the carbon tax. I explained to them why it was a bad tax, why it should not be introduced and how Australians would suffer at the hands of what is a cascading and compounding tax. I went on to explain how there were no exemptions from the tax because everybody uses electricity. At the end of my answer to that question, there was a huge round of applause from kids who are aged eight. In other words, there was a huge awareness of just how bad this tax is. Added to that is the fact that the timetable for allowing submissions to be made to the truncated committee, which will have at least the facade of conducting an inquiry, is structured such that people will not have time to prepare those submissions and make their point of view heard.

The point has been made by many speakers on this side, and very truthfully, that there is no mandate for this tax. On the contrary, there is a mandate for no tax. Everybody in this chamber except the member for Melbourne, the sole Greens member in this place, said there would be no carbon tax. We said we would not have a carbon tax and have said that all the way along. The Prime Minister, of course, said, 'There will be no carbon tax by any government I lead,' and the Treasurer said that it was all a beat-up by the opposition and there was no way there was going to be a carbon tax. This was deliberately said so that people would think, 'I guess we can vote for them because they are not going to introduce a carbon tax.' Had the Labor Party in fact said, 'Yes, we will have a carbon tax,' right down the barrel of the camera, as the Prime Minister chose to make her statement, I have no doubt there would be a different situation in this House today. We would be sitting on opposite sides and the Greens would not have all the influence that they have in demanding what policies go through.

In that same agreement between the Greens and the Australian Labor Party, there is a paragraph relating to the fact that the Greens will have their way and that a carbon tax will be put in place. The agreement also provides that the Greens will have access every week to the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and other ministers. It says that the Greens Treasury spokesperson and Mr Bandt will receive:

… economic and financial briefings from the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance and the Secretaries of the Departments of Treasury and Finance and Deregulation at regularly agreed times.

It is also interesting that this agreement—and it was pertinent to last night's debate, I suppose—says:

Should Senator Brown, Mr Bandt and other Greens … with portfolios, wish to propose new policies, these proposals may be formally submitted to the Office of the Prime Minister and forwarded to the appropriate Department and Minister for analysis. Where the proposal is likely to involve costs, it may also be sent to the Department of Treasury, and the Treasurer, and the Department of Finance … for costing.

This would obviously remain confidential, unlike what would happen should the opposition request that service. No wonder the Greens were prepared to go along with the government last night. They were in a secret agreement whereby they could have an advantage not available to the rest of the parliament, except, of course, for the government.

So, while we say that the Greens and the government agreed to 'transparent and accountable government' and 'improved process and integrity of parliament', what is happening with the debate on these bills is the exact opposite. It is a farce that these 19 bills are part of a cognate debate.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The matter before that House is the motion moved by the Leader of the House. The honourable member should confine her remarks to the motion before the House, which relates to whether standing and sessional orders should be suspended.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are not suspending standing orders, Mr Deputy President; we are simply addressing the debate on the requirement that the House will sit for additional hours, and I am speaking directly to that motion.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I understand that we are debating notice No. 6, moved by the Leader of the House, which provides 'that so much of standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent' two points relating to 'the variation of time and order of business for Tuesday, 11 October' being dealt with. Consequently, the honourable member from Mackellar should be discussing whether or not the motion moved by the Leader of the House should be adopted.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With respect, Mr Deputy Speaker, unlike the situation where we ask leave to move a suspension and the government never grants leave or agrees to the suspension, we have agreed to the suspension and we are debating the motion itself. That is why I am addressing my remarks to the fact that additional time is being sought by the government, despite the fact there is a built-in guillotine, and that that is a contradictory position.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The motion is the motion moved by the Leader of the House. As I understand it, and as I am advised by the Clerk, it is notice No. 6 and the debate should relate to whether or not the motion moved by the Leader of the House should be adopted or rejected. This is not a general cognate debate on whether the bills should be carried or not; we are talking about whether the order of business should be varied.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am addressing very much the question of the increase in time allotted to the discussion of 19 bills which will have the greatest impact on the economy that we have seen in many decades. The fact that we need additional time is something I thoroughly agree with. I am very much prepared to point out that there is a built-in guillotine which would in fact lessen the amount of time that we will have to discuss the bills. On the proposal that we have this additional time, the member for Berowra pointed out very forcefully in his remarks that it is during a time when the political parties meet and when normally things are discussed—like other legislation that is coming before the House. Whilst I am very much in accord with idea of having more time to discuss these bills, I am making the point that it is not the appropriate way for that to be done. But I am wholeheartedly in agreement with the need for more time—and that is the essence of this motion.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, the member should continue to focus on the motion moved by the Leader of the House.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is exactly what I am doing.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I now call, once again, the honourable member for Mackellar.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is exceedingly kind of you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As I return to my remarks concerning the need for more time to discuss these bills—as the motion in front of us is to provide more time—I would point out that there is not sufficient time for the general public to have their point of view considered by way of consideration by the committees that are being established and run concurrently with the debate of these bills; that there is a built-in guillotine, which is lessening the time available; and that at the same time the government comes back and argues that we need more time. That is a conflicting statement, and I think we are perfectly entitled to point that out.

I think I also pointed out earlier that there is no mandate for this tax to be introduced and that people had said, 'We will not have a tax,' and yet it is to be brought in. In the face of that situation we can only compare the way in which, shall we say, change-of-heart legislation was dealt with by previous governments. You can draw the analogy with the GST, where Mr Howard, the then Leader of the Opposition, said there would be no GST but then had a change of heart and went to the people and asked and got a mandate.

We have said again and again in this place that the proper course of action should be for Ms Gillard, the Prime Minister, to go to the people and seek a mandate. But she had chosen not to do that and she has chosen that we will have a certain set time for debate and then the guillotine will apply. And now the Leader of the House has said that he would like some extra hours on Tuesday, when political parties normally meet to discuss business, and he is indicating that there is a need for more time to discuss the bills.

In pointing those things out, it is important for the general public to know that this side of the House is prepared to stand up for them; that this side of the House is prepared to say, 'Your voice is entitled to be heard.' We have also given the people a commitment that, should this guillotine succeed and a vote is taken and the legislation is passed, we will repeal it just as the government repealed Work Choices. We will give that confidence to the Australian people and to Australian business—and, when we see investment increasing, it will because we have given them that guarantee and they can see light at the end of the tunnel.

As I said, when you walk through a shopping centre you see that it is devoid of customers because people are so uncertain and concerned about their disposable income. We definitely need two more hours, and more every day, through to such a time that there has been sufficient debate on the bills for everybody to have had their views heard. If we could see a change of heart in the government to move away from this kangaroo court type committee they have established, and refer these bills to the proper specialist committees, we might get some real reporting back and hear the voices of the people through their proper submissions and the ability of members to ask questions of them and to present their reports for consideration by the government.

When the GST was introduced there was a six-month period where people were able to discuss the actual legislation. We have only just seen this legislation. I go back to the motion moved by the Leader of the House. He is admitting that there is a need for more time and yet will not remove the guillotine. And, of course, their partners in crime, the Greens—who have always been ones to scream loud and clear that they would never have a guillotine; that they would want to see things properly argued through—are in it up to their necks, backing the guillotine so that it can take place not only in this place but in the Senate as well.

When we consider that this cascading and compounding tax will get into the nook and cranny of every aspect of everybody's life, that disposable income will shrink for those on fixed incomes and that the cost of electricity, which impinges on every aspect of civilised life is going to be forced up because of a deal between the Labor Party and the Greens, I can only say that, should this motion be carried, I hope to see many more motions come in extending the length of time that we may debate these matters, because this is of utmost importance to the Australian people.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this very important motion before the House this afternoon, under which the Leader of the House has proposed that so much of standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent, in essence, the House conducting business between 9 am and 2 pm on Tuesday, 11 October 2011.

For us to understand the import of this motion, it is important first to understand the broader context in which this motion is being brought forward and to understand the thinking of the Leader of the House in bringing forward this motion. I am confident that he would not do so lightly. I am confident that the Leader of the House would bring forward this motion for good and sensible reasons. It is in that spirit of disinterested concern to achieve the best possible outcomes that I make my brief contribution on this motion.

I say that having had the great privilege of being personally acquainted with the Leader of the House since the mid-eighties, when he was a member of the Sydney university's student representative council, as was I. It is based upon that interaction that I am confident in saying that he would have brought this forward out of the best of all possible motives and out of a disinterested concern to achieve the best possible outcome. It is a question of considerable importance to the process of this House as to whether this motion ought to be supported. I therefore come back to the question of the broader context in which this motion is being put. The broader context is that the House has before it a package of legislation in relation to the Clean Energy Bill, forming in total a package of some 19 pieces of legislation—very detailed pieces of legislation; very complex pieces of legislation. The Clean Energy Bill itself is very lengthy. I think it is some 380 pages long. It contains, on my review of it, as I recollect, either 23 or 24 parts and each of those deals with matters of considerable substance. The question before the House, as we consider this particular procedural motion, is: what is the most effective way for this House, the people's House, to consider this package of very complex legislation?

Mr Deputy Speaker Slipper, you would be aware that the government has put to the House a particular scheme, a particular process, a particular procedure, under which this package of bills should be considered. Of course, it is against the backdrop of that particular scheme that we consider the merits of the motion before the House this afternoon. In elucidating and informing my comments on the motion before the House this afternoon, it is important that I direct the House to that scheme which was established by the government and which, in fact, was adopted by this parliament in the form of a motion that was passed some time previously. You would recollect that there is a date very shortly after Tuesday, 11 October upon which debate on the substantive bills is guillotined. In other words, debate on the substantive bills can only occur until that point and no longer. You would appreciate that I am working through the elements of this scheme, in part to make sure that I have it straight in my own mind, as a relatively recently arrived member of this House.

The consequence of those arrangements is this: there is necessarily a finite period of time for consideration of this very complex and very substantive package of measures. It is interesting to compare the period of time which is allowed for the House of Representatives, the people's House, to debate this package of legislation with an end-to-end analysis of the earlier steps in the process by which the policy was developed and fleshed out. As we assess this procedural motion in front of us, I think it is appropriate to understand the overall end-to-end context in which this package was developed. There were several stages, going back to the 2007 election, and the phase in which we were told that the emissions trading scheme was addressing the greatest moral challenge of our time. That was what might be called step No. 1 in the lengthy and convoluted process of policy development, all of which is coming to a very sharp point with the scheme the government has put before us and under which debate must be concluded by, I believe, 12 October—certainly very shortly after Tuesday, 11 October. It is against the backdrop of that scheme that we are considering the motion that is before the House this afternoon.

Mr Deputy Speaker Slipper, you would recollect—following me closely, as I am sure you are—that the first step in this end-to-end process was the emissions trading scheme, which was going to address the greatest moral challenge of our time. You would recollect that there was a crucial second step in the process by which the policy was developed. It is a step which is an essential element of the modern Labor Party's policy development process, and that step is called the backflip. That step is where you take the policy you were previously committed to and you dump it—you abandon it. I just make this observation empirically: it is an important element, it would seem, of the iterative and lengthy process by which policy is developed on an end-to-end basis. You would appreciate that the point I am making is that a series of steps occur in the policy development process as we come to the process by which the policy is crystallised into draft legislation and then brought before this House, the people's House, to determine whether it will support the legislation. Of course, it is against that backdrop that we then have to consider whether, first of all, adequate time has been allowed and, secondly, the precise question before the House, which is whether there is merit in the proposal to allow some additional five hours of debate on the clean energy package.

You would appreciate that we had the backflip, but we actually need to appreciate that that was backflip No. 1. This has been a complex end-to-end policy development process. We also had the people's assembly—another important step in the process—we had the commitment 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead', and then of course we had the announcement of the carbon tax. You would appreciate that this is a lengthy and iterative policy development process in which the Labor Party moves from extreme to extreme and back again, rather like a windscreen wiper. It is that lengthy and iterative policy development process which provides the vital context and backdrop against which we must consider the procedural merits of what is being put to the House this afternoon. I would not like it to be thought that I am revisiting this territory for any political purpose. What I am seeking to do is bring to bear this very important context and backdrop in order to understand the significance of the process which this government has put before the House to consider this legislation. We should then ask ourselves, in particular, about the motion we are considering this afternoon for the provision of an extra five hours at what might be called the pointy end of this long process.

From an initial grand Ruddist vision—if I take us back to the early stages—we move through to the essential backflip elements of the policy development process, to the introduction of the lengthy and extensive package of legislation and then to the sharp end, on 12 October, when the bills will, in fact, be the subject of a guillotine at the point beyond which there can be no additional debate in the parliament. It is a consideration of this end-to-end process which is so critical to assessing the merits of this particular motion which proposes that there ought to be an extra five hours available on Tuesday, 11 October. This, we understand, is to allow for further debate on the Clean Energy Bill. That is the backdrop. That is the essential context.

You will appreciate that I found it necessary to lay that out as the important context in which to then offer my own views as to the merits of this particular proposal. I hasten to add that I do that based upon my confidence that the Leader of the House is open to a disinterested assessment of the various virtues of the alternative schemes before the House. Clearly, such a scheme before the House is the one that the Leader of the House has proposed, which is to offer an additional five hours to allow for additional debate concerning the clean energy package.

Of course, an alternative scheme available to the House would be to say to the Leader of the House, with the greatest of respect, that we do not consider that the particular proposal he has put forward here is the best or the optimal proposal. All of us in this House are united with the Leader of the House in our clear desire to achieve optimality when it comes to the procedures to be followed by this House.

This may be setting the standard too high—I am a relatively recently arrived member—but I do not believe it is. I do not believe it is setting the standard too high to ask ourselves what is the optimal process which we ought apply when dealing with the fact that this is a large and complex package of legislation that this House has already decided, on the basis of a motion previously moved by the Leader of the House, to guillotine debate on 12 October—that is, very shortly after the relevant date for the purposes of the motion which is presently being considered by the House.

Some might say that this is a problem the Leader of the House has created for himself. Some might say that this is a difficulty which the Leader of the House has imposed. It is a roadblock he has put in front of himself on his very own road. There was no compulsion for the Leader of the House to come in here some days ago and move a motion which set 12 October as the date upon which the bills would be guillotined. The existence of that guillotine is the essential backdrop to understanding the merits of the motion presently before the House. It is so important that we all have a very clear appreciation of the essential logical nexus between the proposal currently before the House and the constraint which the House faces—you will recollect, Mr Deputy Speaker—as a consequence of a previous motion moved by the Leader of the House. The Leader of the House is himself the author of the difficulty with which all of us are now wrestling in a disinterested spirit as we seek to find the best possible solution to this very difficult challenge.

I do not say this with any pleasure. I do not say this with any lightness of heart. I do not say this with any sense of joy. There is no skip in my step or lilt in my tone as I say this, but I do say that I consider that on its merits this motion ought not be supported. I do not think this is the best scheme available to the House. I do not think it meets the test of optimality. I think we ought to reach for the best, and the best would be to abandon the guillotine completely and consider this package of bills taking all the time that is necessary. That is the approach I recommend to the House. (Time expired)

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is obvious that the opposition have become the master of the filibuster. Isn't this an interesting debate? Should I call it a debate? It is a conversation they are having with themselves. Speaker after speaker after speaker on that side has risen to argue that we should be spending more time debating the Clean Energy Bills. Yet they have just wasted an hour in which we could have been debating the Clean Energy Bills.

(Quorum formed)