Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to move a motion to provide that the Carbon Tax Plebiscite Bill 2011 have precedence over all government business till determined.

Leave not granted.

I move:

That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion relating to the conduct of the business of the Senate, namely a motion to provide that the Carbon Tax Plebiscite Bill 2011 be called on immediately and have precedence over all government business till determined.

The Australian people have been deceived by their Prime Minister; even Labor stalwarts such as former Senator Graham Richardson have said so. When the polls were tight last year suggesting a hung parliament, the Prime Minister deliberately and deceptively told the Australian people there would be no carbon tax under a government led by her. Everybody knows that if Labor had said there would be a carbon tax Labor would be in opposition today. Having deceived the Australian people the Prime Minister then did a deal with the Australian Greens. With 98 per cent of parliamentarians elected to this place on a no carbon tax platform, the Australian people are rightly asking how come we are facing the prospect of a carbon tax, a tax that will destroy our household budgets, destroy our jobs and, perversely, impact our environment as our clean manufacturing sector is displaced by the dirty manufacturers of Brazil, Russia, India and China?

Today the Senate can give the people of Australia a voice. Today the Senate can give expression to the will of the Australian people by giving them a plebiscite. I appeal in particular to the absent Senator Fielding. His time in this place will be framed by his vote on this measure. Will he actually put families first and give them a say as to whether family budgets will be allowed to be destroyed by a Green-Labor tax? If he does he will be complicit in every family's household budget nightmares. He will be complicit in every job lost. He will be complicit in joining the Green-Labor deal. He will be complicit in denying Australians a voice on a carbon tax. He will be the author of his own political epitaph. It will be either 'Senator Fielding saved Australia from a carbon tax by standing by his principles' or 'Senator Fielding sold out Australians to a carbon tax by selling out on his principles'. While the call is his, the judgment will belong to the Australian people, and their judgment will be very forceful.

I say to each individual senator: do not underestimate the strength of feeling in the Australian community at this deceptive Green-Labor carbon tax. To relieve this growing chance of disenfranchisement, this growing sense of having been deceived, this growing sense of repulsion in the Green-Labor deal, we in the coalition want to offer a circuit-breaker so that the Australian people can have their rightful say, give them an opportunity to express their views.

There is simply no mandate for a carbon tax. It was specifically ruled out by the Prime Minister not once, not twice, but many times. And when we warned the Australian people about the possibility, the Treasurer said we are being hysterical. He was nearly right. We were being historical, not hysterical, because Labor has form on these issues. If we remember, at the last election Ms Gillard had to knife Kevin Rudd because she was going to solve the border protection problem with the East Timor solution, she was going to solve the mining issue because she had done a deal with the miners and, of course, she could be believed because there was not going to be a carbon tax. On all three counts, this government has failed the Australian people, has deceived the Australian people, has failed them immensely. On this particular issue of the carbon tax the Australian people have been expressing very strong views. They want their say. We in the coalition want to give them their say. The vote of each individual senator will determine whether or not Australians get their say. The simple question senators have to ask themselves is: are you willing to trust the Australian people to get this issue right? We in the coalition are willing to trust them.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We oppose the suspension of standing orders to debate a bill for a plebiscite because the government's view is that this is nothing but a last-minute stunt by the opposition. We know that, in an effort to put something in the Monday morning papers, Mr Abbott and his team decided, with a week to go in the current parliament, that they would launch a bill for a plebiscite. They announced proudly that at 10 o'clock in the morning they would come into the parliament and put the bill before both houses of parliament. Here we are on Wednesday, two days later, with a half-hearted attempt by Senator Abetz to try to justify the humiliation that has been afforded Tony Abbott on this question.

When they announced they were coming in at 10 o'clock on Monday morning to fight for a plebiscite they forgot to note that the parliament did not sit until 4.30 in the afternoon. That is a little oversight on the grand strategy. No-one had told Senator Abetz, because he was not ready to go on Monday—he read about it in the papers. This grand strategy was unravelled by about nine o'clock on Monday morning. Since then, we have had this scramble to try to justify the position. This was a media stunt. It was a stunt that only lasted about 12 hours.

When Mr Abbott was asked to defend it he had to explain why suddenly he had come to this position. He had to try to answer the point that maybe it was related to the fact that the Senate would change on 1 July and maybe it was a little opportunity to play some politics. But, when asked the key question about the plebiscite and his claims that this was about giving people the chance to make the decision themselves, he said he would not accept the result. He said, 'We'll spend $80 million of taxpayers' money, we'll let the people decide, but if we don't like the decision the Liberal Party won't accept it.' What an absolute fraud. We have the Leader of the Opposition coming up with this stunt, saying that this is a really important issue of democracy in Australia, and then saying that he would not accept the result. What a nonsense. His whole campaign for this plebiscite collapsed within hours, his credibility in shreds.

What we have today, two days later, is a decision by the leadership of the Liberal Party to say: 'We'd better go through the motions. We'd better go in the Senate and pretend we're serious about this. We'd better give it a run. It's all turned to complete dust, but we'd better get in there and at least say we fought the fight.' This was lost two days ago when Mr Abbott undermined his own position, when he said, 'No, it's important that the Australian people decide, but if we don't like the decision we won't change our position.' It was totally undermined by Mr Abbott.

This is a stunt. It is nothing more and nothing less, and Senator Abetz's rather half-hearted attempt today reflected that. An attack on Senator Fielding that somehow Tony Abbott's incompetence would be all Senator Fielding's fault is a little unfair on Senator Fielding. It was a stunt that unravelled because of a lack of any strategic decision-making behind it. You could not even work out what time parliament sat. You could not work out that if you introduced a bill in both houses of parliament at the same time they would not give you legislation; it had to be done serially through both houses of parliament. This was done by the media team without reference to the Senate leadership and is a nonsense. Quite frankly, Tony Abbott stands condemned as an incompetent leader by virtue of his handling of this matter. You have never seen anything quite as ham-fisted as this. To come in and argue that we ought to have a plebiscite but then say he will not accept the result is just breathtaking in its incompetence.

I urge the Senate to reject this attempt to deal with this bill. It is not in accordance with normal procedures but, more importantly, it has been revealed as an absolute stunt in which the Liberal Party do not have their hearts. The best they can do, 48 hours later, is come into the Senate and go through the motions—to try to limit the humiliation that Tony Abbott is now having to confront.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We will not be supporting this motion to suspend standing orders so we can debate a bill for a plebiscite. This is Tony Abbott's rocket manoeuvre. He announced his plan for a plebiscite in the tabloid press—that was blast-off; it exploded all over the sky; and now it has fallen to earth like a dead stick. It has nowhere to go, except that some days later we have the Abetz-led coalition up here in the Senate trying to give it some oxygen. It will not work. They have nowhere to go with it. Seriously, is this Senate going to set aside all the other business confronting Australia to bring forward a proposal for a plebiscite—or a proposal on any matter you like—on the run?

I have just been speaking to the local government conference in Canberra. There were 900 candidates there.

Senator Nash interjecting—

The Nationals might not like this but it is the reality. We had a good discussion there about hugely important issues, like the current furore over export of livestock overseas, like the need to find a carbon price for Australia and like the mining boom, which is bringing great hardship not just to manufacturing industries but—

Senator Nash interjecting—

The National Party does not want to support manufacturing industries or rural and regional Australia like the Greens will—

Senator Nash interjecting—

And the poddy calves are carrying on from the National Party benches, but they have nowhere to go. What I want to hear from them is whether they are going to support a properly constituted process for a plebiscite of the Australian people to recognise Indigenous Australians. What is their position on supporting a proper process through parliament, with consultation with the Australian people, on recognising local government?

This is a coalition that does not know about process, does not honour the constitutional norms in this country and does not have respect for proper parliamentary procedure but wants to come in and carry on with a manoeuvre that has fallen flat. The major reason it has fallen flat is that, when asked about what he would do if the Australian people supported action on climate change—as I predict they would—Tony Abbott said he would not support it. 'Either the Australian people vote the way I want them to or I will reject them'—what sort of democracy is Tony Abbott talking about there? Of course, the Telegraph did not run that yesterday, did it? So we got Tony Abbott saying, 'I want to go to the Australian people but I will take no notice of them.'

Annette Hurley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Brown, senators in this debate have started talking about 'Tony Abbott'. We should refer to members by their correct titles in this debate.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If the name does not suit, so be it. I think we need to modernise ourselves a little bit there, Madam Acting Deputy President. But I take your point; I will move on from references to 'Tony Abbott' and use 'Mr Abbott'. He is the same person, and it is not going to make it any easier for the National Party and the Liberal Party here to defend the indefensible. What a silly parliamentary manoeuvre this is. What a waste of this Senate's time, when we should be looking at the legislation on the agenda here, which affects families, which affects regional and rural Australia, which is aimed at dealing—

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You would give them death duties. You want to give rural and regional people death duties.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The National Party senator opposite is talking about some plan they have for the death of rural and regional Australia. That is because it is the coal industry that is speaking through this National Party these days.

Senator Boswell interjecting—

If she wants to interject, she'll cop it, because they have let down rural and regional Australia.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order, on honesty. My colleague Senator Nash said that the Greens wanted to bring in death duties, and that was a clear statement last night.

Annette Hurley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Boswell, do you have a point of order?

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes. The point of order is this: the statement that Senator Brown made, that the National Party wanted to bring in death duties, is completely contrary—

Annette Hurley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Boswell, you are debating the issue at this point—

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, it is completely contrary—

An honourable senator: Lee Rhiannon wants to; she told us on 7.30.

She didn't want death duties, and she was accusing the Greens of bringing them in.

Annette Hurley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Boswell, there is no point of order.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is the National Party in action for you—they cannot even get the wording in the Senate, let alone the procedure, right. They have lost it. It is the coal-mining party and it has to deal with that. Meanwhile, the Greens are for rural Australia, are for regional Australia and are the champions of the bush. That is a different matter. We will not be supporting this motion.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy President, who said this:

This is not something for which the government has a mandate. It is not something that it exposed in any detail before the election. In fact … a straight-out mistruth was told during the election campaign …

I will tell you, Madam Acting Deputy President, who said that: Senator Chris Evans, addressing this chamber on 1 December 2005 during the Work Choices debate. When it suited the Australian Labor Party they were prepared to condemn my side of politics for introducing legislation for which they claimed we had no mandate. And yet what are they doing today? Using every trick, every procedural device, in order to prevent the Australian people having their say about a policy measure that the Labor Party were elected on a promise not to pursue. That is the difference. The Labor Party used to claim to believe in mandates. So did Senator Bob Brown—though I see he has scurried away from the chamber.

But these facts do not admit of controversy. First of all, six days before the election Julia Gillard said, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' Second of all, she would not have won that election if she had said the opposite and in fact been honest about her intentions in the event that a Labor government was formed. Thirdly, the only chance now the Australian people are likely to get to have their say on whether there should be a carbon tax is if this bill is passed by this parliament. Those three statements do not admit of controversy.

What are they so afraid of on the government benches? I will tell you what they are so afraid of—they are afraid of the Australian people. That is who they are afraid of. The Prime Minister lied her way into office, and now she is trying to prevent the Australian people having the opportunity to pass judgement on the consequences of her lie. It is as simple as that. We know what the consequences of a plebiscite on the carbon tax will be, because every opinion poll that has been taken in this country on this issue has told us that by an overwhelming margin the Australian people object to having a carbon tax foisted on them by a government that promised not to introduce one and only fell over the line last year because they promised not to introduce one.

Mark Arbib (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Social Housing and Homelessness) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You speak on behalf of the Australian people, do you?

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me take your interjection, Senator Arbib. We will stand the judgment of the Australian people on this, but you won't. We will abide by the result of any democratic plebiscite. In fact, your fellow travellers from GetUp! have been waging an expensive television campaign, the tagline of which was 'Say Yes to action on climate change' and 'Say Yes to the carbon tax'. That is fine. I believe that people who believe in the carbon tax should have every opportunity to say yes to it so long as people who do not believe in a carbon tax have the same opportunity to say no to it. We are only hearing one side of the argument and the only opportunity the vast majority of Australians will have to cast their judgment, the vast majority of Australians who want to say no to a carbon tax are ever going to get to say no to it, is if this plebiscite bill passes.

Beware of a government fleeing in panic from the judgment of the people. Beware of a government that mocks the exercise of democratic choice as 'a stunt'. Beware of a government that says there is only one side to this story and that is the government's line and if you disagree with the government's line then you do not get the opportunity even so much as to say so. And beware of a government led by an individual who lies her way into office—

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think beyond all possible bounds of interpretation of the standing orders that ought to be withdrawn.

Annette Hurley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Brandis, I ask you to withdraw.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw. Let the Prime Minister's words speak for themselves: 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' And let the Australian people make their minds up. (Time expired)

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not support this suspension of standing orders and I do not back a political stunt that is nothing more than an $80 million glorified opinion poll that is not binding. Maybe you want to listen to something that Paul Kelly has written in the Australian:

THERE is no established practice in Australian national politics for plebiscites to determine policy issues for the obvious reason they are a bad idea that advances neither democracy, good government nor sound public policy.

The plebiscite on the carbon tax proposed by Tony Abbott is not smart politics. It does not assist Abbott's cause or his standing.

So, in fact, I am doing you a favour. You are half-hearted even in this chamber about this. It is nothing more than a political stunt and an $80 million glorified opinion poll that you know is not binding. It is nothing more than a stunt and I don't back it.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The plebiscite proposed by the opposition has been described as 'a stunt'. Well, after a decade in the South Australian parliament, I know a thing or two about stunts and this is not one. I do not believe Julia Gillard was lying to the Australian people when she said there would be no carbon tax under the Gillard government. To lie you have to be saying something that you did not believe and I do not think the Prime Minister believed at the time there would be a carbon tax under her government. But circumstances changed and the Prime Minister had to change her position. Did she lie? No. Did what she say about there not being a carbon tax have a material impact on the way Australian people voted and the outcome of the election? Probably and many would say almost certainly. That is why I think a plebiscite on this issue is justified. With such a fundamental change in policy direction, I believe the right thing to do is to take this back to the people. Politicians are constantly going on about how disengaged the people are when it comes to politics. Well here is a chance to get them re-engaged. I have worked with the coalition to depoliticise the language of the question and I have insisted that I want the vote to be on the legislation. I would urge the government to release their plan as soon as possible so the Australian people can make an informed choice.

My mind on this was made up in a sense 13 years ago when I had to speak in the South Australian parliament about the then Olsen Liberal government's plans to privatise the state's electricity assets after saying at the 1997 state election that they would not do so. They had a mandate not to sell the assets in the same way that this government has a mandate not to go ahead with what is being proposed. I quoted social researcher Hugh Mackay back then and I think it is worth quoting him again. He said:

With trust in the political process being eroded with every bent principle, every broken promise and every policy backflip, the level of cynicism has reached breaking point for many Australians.

I think that is what we are seeing here. In the ordinary course of events our system of parliamentary democracy expects our elected representatives to make decisions conscientiously in the interests of the nation as a whole. If the electorate does not approve of these decisions then you can rectify that in the ordinary course of events at the next election. But this is about a fundamental change in policy where I do not believe you can unscramble the egg once you have put it into place. That is why I believe that it is important that the Australian people have a say. A plebiscite is not technically binding but it would be a foolish government and a foolish opposition that would ignore the will of the people. On this issue especially the Australian people deserve to be heard. I support the motion.

Mark Arbib (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Social Housing and Homelessness) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It must be absolutely embarrassing for Liberal senators this morning to come in here with this plebiscite idea when we already know what a stunt it is. For the past three weeks the Leader of the Opposition has been pulling stunts across Queanbeyan. He has been to construction sites and door factories. He has been looking for other building sites. He has run out of places to visit. So where does he end up with his absolute stunt—a joke of an idea—in terms of the plebiscite? It is an $80 million stunt from a politician who says no to everything, opposes everything, is a destroyer, and then he comes up with this stunt.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We will abide by the judgment of the Australian people. Take it to an election!

Annette Hurley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cormann, order!

Senator Abetz interjecting —

Senator Abetz, I cannot hear Senator Arbib talk because of the interjections on my left.

Mark Arbib (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Social Housing and Homelessness) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We know it is a poor stunt. On day 1, when he got his big newspaper headline and it looked like it was going well, the Leader of the Opposition did his first radio interview and they asked him, 'Will you abide by the people if they vote against you in the plebiscite?' What was his answer? Absolutely not. He will not abide by it. This shows what a stunt and absolute fraud this is. He will not abide by any result of the plebiscite if it goes against him. It is there, in black and white: he said it on radio. Even worse, he was asked on one of the TV programs that night, 'If you are elected Prime Minister, will you hold other plebiscites on other important issues?' No, he will not: no other plebiscites on any other issues. This is the only plebiscite and he will not abide by it. That tells you a little bit about who Mr Abbott is, who he really is. 'Phony Tony' is a name that has been used for him plenty of times.

Annette Hurley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Arbib, I have asked that senators call members by their correct name.

Mark Arbib (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Social Housing and Homelessness) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have been referring to the Leader of the Opposition as the Leader of the Opposition or by his name, Mr Abbott. It is pretty clear that this plebiscite is a joke, it is a fraud and he will not abide in any way by the people. He has said that himself and that there will be no other plebiscites. The Liberal Party talk about listening to Australians. It is an absolute joke. These are the same people who, without going to an election, introduced Work Choices, which stole the conditions and the penalty rates of working Australians. Did they have a plebiscite? Did they put that to an election? No, they did not. Did they put to a plebiscite a big decision for the country like sending troops to Afghanistan? No, they did not. Today the sheer hypocrisy of the Liberal Party and the National Party and also of Mr Abbott has been revealed. This is not a real proposal. This is the worst kind of stunt and it must be embarrassing for Liberal senators to have to come into this chamber and defend it.

This is a Liberal Party that opposes everything. They say no to everything. In the other chamber they try to block everything. Every time the government tries to put in place plans and proposals to fight climate change, to improve and reform the economy, they block them. Once again I ask this chamber to reject this proposal. It is a fraud from a fraud of an opposition leader.

Annette Hurley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time for this debate has expired. I put the question:

That the motion (Senator Abetz's) be agreed to.   

The Senate divided. [10:08]

(The President—Senator Hogg)

Question negatived.