Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

They would lose. They do not want to present themselves to the judgment of the Australian people. The model for scrutiny of significant economic change is the goods and services tax, which I think was change for good, unlike the carbon tax. I would argue that, whether you think the carbon tax is good or bad, it is a much more far-reaching change to the Australian economy than the GST ever was and, as such, it deserves greater scrutiny. The model for scrutiny is the GST as introduced under the Howard government. The contrast between our approach to significant economic change—I will not call it 'reform' because it is not—under this government and the significant economic reform under the previous coalition government could not be more different.

Firstly, the coalition sought a mandate at an election. There was no hiding, no subterfuge. Having won a mandate, we submitted our legislation to the most searing and searching scrutiny of any legislative package in the history of this parliament. At that time, the GST legislation sat on the table in the House before it was debated—something which has not occurred with the carbon tax legislation. After it passed the House and came to the Senate, the GST legislation spent five months in Senate committees—not a couple of weeks; five months. And after 25 November 1998, when the Senate established the Senate Select Committee on A New Tax System, that committee referred issues to three separate Senate references committees. At that time we had a total of four Senate committees examining the goods and services tax legislation. We followed a good and proper process. We introduced the bills, they sat on the table, we did not rush and the House had hours to debate. We did the right thing. We subjected the legislation to the appropriate scrutiny of the Australian parliament after having sought and gained a mandate.

The government should withdraw this motion for extra hours. They should withdraw this motion for an extra sitting week. They should also discharge the 19 carbon tax bills currently before the House. They should call an election. They should submit themselves—their tax, their legislation, their policy—to the judgment of the Australian people. If they did that and if they won, I would be the first person to say, 'Fine, bring the legislation on. Let's have a Senate committee process.' Even then, if they followed that process, I would still be arguing that there should be a good five months of scrutiny in this place for a package of this magnitude.

Even if the parliament as a whole thinks that something is a good idea, that legislation is worthwhile, we still have a role to perform in the Australian Senate and in Senate committees—to be a fresh set of eyes, even on legislation for which there is wide agreement. For legislation for which there is not wide agreement our role is even more important—that is our job, that is what we should do.

Those opposite have made it clear that they have nothing but unbridled contempt for the Australian people. Those opposite do not care what the Australian people think. In fact, worse than that, they have contempt for what the Australian people think and they want to actively deceive the Australian people. Never in my time in professional politics of 20-plus years have I seen an act of this magnitude by a government of premeditated deceit of the Australian people—nothing with such premeditation and nothing of this size.

We reject this motion to extend hours. We reject this motion to allocate an extra sitting week, not because we are against the parliament doing its job but because the government should be managing within the program it laid out at the start of the year. We on this side of the chamber will not be complicit in providing the opportunity for this government to facilitate a lie to the Australian people.

This legislation should be taken back to the Australian people and if, by some miracle, this government happened to win an election on that basis, they should then be subject to appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. We will reject this motion. This government have failed in their duty to be upfront with the Australian people and they are failing in their duty to provide proper scrutiny for this package of bills in this place.