Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Hansard source

We oppose the ruse by the Leader of the House. It is transparently an attempt to maintain a significant disadvantage for the opposition. I begin with simple facts: the ALP has 103 members or 45.6 per cent of the composition of the parliament; the coalition has 106 members or 46.9 per cent of the composition of the parliament; the Greens have 10 members or 4.4 per cent of the composition of the parliament; and the Independents have three per cent of the composition of the parliament. The ratio proposed for membership of this committee under the original situation contained within the Leader of the House's motion is that the ALP would have one member for every 9.1 per cent of the parliamentary representation. The coalition would have one member for every 11.7 per cent of our quota of the total parliament. The Greens would have one member for every 2.2 per cent—or five times more than the coalition has in terms of its ratio. The Independents would have one for every three per cent of the total quota of parliamentary representatives.

The change which we propose would maintain the ALP at one for every 9.1 per cent of the parliament. The coalition would improve, to one for every 9.4 per cent of the parliament—still the worst representation of any grouping within this parliament. The Greens would return to one for every 4.4 per cent, but still about 2½ times better on a ratio basis than the representation of the coalition. The Independents would maintain the best representation, at one for every three per cent of the total parliamentary quota. So, in terms of pure equity, we put ourselves in the most disadvantageous position—even with our amendment. The amendment proposed by the Leader of the House to our amendment simply enshrines a systemic disadvantage and a massive over-representation of the Greens. It is neither fair nor equitable; nor does it assist the business of this parliament in any meaningful way. This is the debate that you have when you do not have an election to determine a mandate based on an honest rendering of policy.

At the last election the Prime Minister of Australia said, on the Monday before that election, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead', and on the day before the election she said, 'I rule out a carbon tax.' I want to repeat that: 'I rule out a carbon tax.' This was not a minor, passing commentary; it was repeated twice by the Treasurer of Australia, who ridiculed the concept that this ALP could ever introduce a carbon tax. It was a fundamental mandate not to introduce a carbon tax, fundamentally broken after the election. These were not minor undertakings. These were sacred pledges taken to the Australian people, at the forefront of national debate, in the final week of an election period, made by no less a person than the Prime Minister of Australia, the leader of the ALP, and these pledges were thereafter broken unnecessarily. There was no need for that undertaking to be broken, because on the night of the election the Greens pledged their support to an ALP government. On the night of the election, the member for Melbourne pledged support to an ALP government. That means that the entire rationale for breaking that fundamental sacred pledge which the Prime Minister took to the election has no basis. In other words, it was a direct, deliberate deception. There was no need, no requirement, no duty, no pressure to break that pledge to the Australian people, because the member for Melbourne said on election night: 'I'll support the ALP.' How can this government proceed on the basis of a fundamental deception?

The point is twofold. Firstly, the Australian people know this was a deception and therefore there was a breach of faith on a grand basis. Secondly, the consequence is that they will pay the price for the destructive impact of this tax on their lives, their livelihoods and in particular the manufacturing processes of Australia. I note here that, of all the countries in the world, there is no comparable system. China is going through a period of the fastest growth in emissions in history. Between 1990 and 2020 its emissions are increasing 496 per cent. It is not about to introduce a systemic carbon tax. It is going through a period of an increase in coal consumption from 2002 to 2015—contrary to the assertions of the Prime Minister—from 1.4 billion tonnes to four billion tonnes. This is the fastest growth in coal consumption in human history. There is no dispute and no debate about that. Even if the Prime Minister might try to represent the change from small, inefficient coal-fired power stations to massive power stations as some form of win for the environment, it is not. It is about increasing the amount of emissions which China is producing on a grand, systemic and unparalleled scale.

In India, we are seeing an increase in emissions of approximately 350 per cent between 1990 and 2020. In the United States, most significantly, there will be no cap-and-trade system, no carbon tax system, no system comparable to that which is proposed by the Australian government. The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative is bumping along at a floor price of approximately $1.89. The Western Climate Initiative has gone from more than 20 potential members to seven potential members to a situation where really only California is proceeding in any significant way. If the United States does not have a national cap-and-trade scheme then neither will Canada. Japan has deferred its system and Korea has deferred its system.

And that brings me to Europe, where the Minerals Council has produced very interesting work which shows that Australia has an annual rate of tax which will be the best part of 18 times that which the European Union has had. The only difference beyond that is that the European Union has a population of 500 million people and the Australian land mass has a population of 22.6 million people. It means that we will be charging almost $400 per head of population under the carbon tax the Prime Minister said Australia would never have, and Europe will charge people just over a dollar per person per year. We are seeing a situation of an almost 400 times greater levy per head of population.

That is why this debate is about giving the Australian people a genuine say through the parliamentary process and a genuine vote through a proper and exhaustive debate on the floor of the parliament. The floor of the parliament will see approximately one minute of debate per member per bill allocated. That is one minute per member per bill for a massive rise in electricity, gas and grocery prices. That is not democratic practice; that is a fraud upon democracy. Let us look at the committee process, at the very issue contained within the amendments. The point of the committee process should be to give the joint select committee, which spans both houses of parliament, comparable representation to the parties that have been elected by the people of Australia. The point about comparable representation is, firstly, that during the GST debate there were four specialist committees in the Senate. We believe there should be five specialist committees in the House, and we would be willing to discuss and compromise on those. We believe that that would be an appropriate approach given the magnitude and scope and reach of these bills. Secondly, in terms of the composition of the joint select committee, as I said at the outset, the ALP has 103 members, or 45.6 per cent of the parliament; the coalition has 106 members, or 46.9 per cent; the Greens have 10 members, or 4.4 per cent; and the Independents have seven members, or three per cent.

We seek a situation where the coalition would still have the lowest ratio of members of the committee compared with members of the parliament. We would have one member for every 9.4 per cent of the parliament, the ALP would have one for every 9.1 per cent of their parliamentary representation, the Greens would have one for every 4.4 per cent, and the Independents would have one for every three per cent. That is an equitable deal; that is a fair deal. What the Leader of the House proposes is unfair, inequitable and consistent with the practice of denying proper discussion prior to an election, and denying proper discussion of this legislation, whether it is through the inquiry process or through debate on the floor of the parliament.

Question put:

That the amendment (Mr Albanese's) to the proposed amendment (Mr Pyne's) be agreed to.

The House divided. [18:13]

(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)

Question agreed to.

Question put:

That the amendment (Mr Pyne's), as amended, be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

See this speech in context