Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share 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.

See this speech in context