Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Hansard source

Today is in fact a very historic day in the life of the Australian parliament. It is not a historic day just because this is the first business day of the 43rd parliament; it is not a historic day simply on account of it being the first day under the operation of the new reformed standing orders. It is in fact a historic day because this is the first day since 1941 when an Australian government has lost a vote on the floor of the House of Representatives. This is a historic day because it is the first day since 1941 when a government has been defeated on the floor of the House of Representatives.

15:28:47

What that means is that this is finally a real parliament. This parliament is finally no longer an echo chamber of the executive. This opposition entirely accepts the result of the election—but that result is that this government can no longer command a secure majority on the floor of this parliament. And I also let the Australian people know that this is a government that cannot be trusted to keep its commitments. This government lost a vote on the floor of this parliament because it proposed to put into the standing orders something which was a breach of a commitment. This government promised that there would be no recommittal of votes in this chamber without, first, a suspension of standing orders. That was the commitment this government made and that is the commitment this government proposed to break with the standing order it put before the parliament earlier today and which vote it lost in a historic moment on the floor of the parliament.

I know that there have been some difficulties over the parliamentary reform agreement, and I am sorry that one aspect of the agreement could not be put into practice because it was constitutionally unsound and legally unenforceable, but there was no reason the government could not put its commitment into practice today. It chose not to put its commitment into practice simply to suit its own convenience and so was quite rightly defeated on the floor of the parliament in a mighty historic first. This means that for the first time since 1941 we have a real parliament that is no longer an echo chamber of the executive.

The promise that was sought to be broken today was certainly not the first broken promise from this government. I intend to go through some of the other broken promises of this government but, before I do, let me remind the House of a very important statement of principle:

I think when you go to an election and you give a promise to the Australian people, you should do everything in your power to honour that promise. We are determined to do that. We gave our word to the Australian people in the election and this is a Government that prides itself on delivering election promises. We want Australians to be able to say well, they’ve said this and they did this …

I am not quoting some arcane reference. I am not quoting Barlin. I am not quoting any ancient Clerk of the House. I am not quoting Burke or Bagehot. I am not quoting Chifley or Curtin. I am not quoting Nye Bevan. I am quoting the current Prime Minister, who has put it as clearly and as unambiguously on the record as possible: governments should keep their commitments.

Now, as we know from the parliament today, it has all changed. No commitment can be given so solemnly, no commitment can be given so seriously and no principle can be held so sacredly that it cannot be broken by this government simply because of the different circumstances which now exist on the floor of this parliament. Sure, a finely balanced parliament might make keeping commitments more difficult, but a finely balanced parliament does not lessen the obligation that a government has to honour its promises. A finely balanced parliament does not justify saying one thing before an election and doing something entirely different and absolutely opposite after an election. A hung parliament is no excuse for a weak government and what we have now is not only a weak government but also a deceitful government.

Let me remind the House of what the Prime Minister said just before the election. On 16 August, a mere week before the election, the Prime Minister said:

There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.

The day before the election, on 20 August, the Prime Minister said:

I rule out a carbon tax.

That is what the Prime Minister said the day before the election. What does she say now? Just three weeks after the election, when asked about a carbon tax, she said:

… I just think the rule-in, rule-out games are a little bit silly.

If it is so silly why did she play precisely those games prior to the election? We have a Prime Minister in this parliament who says one thing to win votes and then does the complete opposite in order to cobble together a government. This is a Prime Minister who has misled the Australian people in order to save her own political skin. This is a thoroughly dishonourable and deceitful government and it deserves to be exposed as such.

In the parliament today the Prime Minister said that when it comes to the subject of a carbon tax you could not possibly expect her to keep her commitment because the numbers have changed—the government does not have a majority. I remind the Prime Minister that there were two main parties contesting the election. There was the coalition—the Liberal-National Party—and we definitely, comprehensively, unambiguously and with crystal clarity ruled out a carbon tax. Then we had members opposite not saying much on this subject for most of the election campaign, but when the heat was on in the last days of that campaign what did they do? They unambiguously, in words of very few syllables, ruled out a carbon tax. So there are two main parties in this parliament and both of them ruled out a carbon tax. What possible excuse does the Prime Minister have for now ruling it in? The numbers in this parliament should be against a carbon tax because every member opposite was elected on the promise that there would be no carbon tax.

I am not surprised that the Prime Minister has absented herself from the chamber on this subject. If she has any honour, if she has any shred of conscience on this subject, she must be ashamed of what she did before the election and what she is doing now after the election. She has sent the Deputy Prime Minister into this chamber to defend her. I am looking forward to the Deputy Prime Minister’s speech. But it is impossible to defend the indefensible and it is absolutely indefensible to say one thing before an election and do the exact opposite after an election. That demonstrates that this government is built on a lie. It perhaps has constitutional legitimacy, but it does not have ethical legitimacy given that its election was built on a lie. The Prime Minister was not the only person who was complicit in this deception.

See this speech in context