Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

The motion that I understand we are discussing is:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent:

(1) the time and order of business for Tuesday, 11 October 2011 being as follows:

(a) the House shall meet at 9 a.m.;

(b) Government business shall have priority from 9 a.m. until 2 p.m.; and

(c) during the period from 9 a.m. until 2 p.m. any division on a question called for in the House, other than on a motion moved by a Minister during this period, shall stand deferred until the conclusion of the discussion of a matter of public importance; and

(2) any variation to this arrangement to be made only by a motion moved by a Minister

The purpose of this is clear. It is to have the parliament sitting at a time when it would not ordinarily be doing so. For the purposes of enabling proper discussion of legislation and the consideration of the approach that might be taken to the administration of the proceedings of this chamber, all of our parties are known to have time reserved for meetings when a position can be determined. In the context of our two-party system, it is pretty fundamental that parties need time to deliberate on important matters that require consideration and to determine a position. Otherwise, we would come in here like headless chooks voting on a whole lot of issues in different ways. It might be interesting to some to have our parliament less certain than it is already with a hung parliament, but it seems to me that an essential part of the way we have evolved with our robust parliamentary system of democracy is to function within a two-party system, and it can only work if the parties are able to properly deliberate and consider matters that are coming before it. Traditionally that has always been done on Tuesday mornings; time is kept available for that purpose. This means that there is now the prospect that the chamber will be sitting at the same time that the party meetings are deliberating. That means you have to start to make choices. You may not, if you are here and wanting to contribute to this substantial question—and I am told it is a substantial question—of the various clean energy bills, be able to contribute. You will have to make a choice: do you go to the party room and participate? Is something considered there without their knowledge or contribution? There is the distinct possibility that you may be disenfranchised, prevented from participating fully in discussions that are of absolute importance.

It also says something about what we are discussing. While it is not referred to directly in the motion, the Leader of the House has made it clear that this is to deal with items 11 to 19 on the Notice Paper: Clean Energy (Unit Shortfall Charge—General) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge—Auctions) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge—Fixed Charge) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (International Unit Surrender Charge) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Charges—Customs) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Charges—Excise) Bill 2011, Clean Energy Regulator Bill 2011, Climate Change Authority Bill 2011 and Steel Transformation Plan Bill 2011. This is on top of items 1 to 10: Clean Energy Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Income Tax Rates Amendments) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Household Assistance Amendments) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Tax Laws Amendments) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Fuel Tax Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Customs Tariff Amendment) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Excise Tariff Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011 and Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment Bill 2011. I am reasonably satisfied that I have not missed any of the bills.

This tells you that this is an extraordinarily complex set of bills to implement a legislative proposal for a carbon tax. I have been in the parliament when we have considered substantial legislation that fundamentally changes our tax system. I was here in parliament when we considered legislation of this character, in terms of complexity and difficulty, and the likely impact that it is going to have on the Australian community—the broadly based consumption tax. That legislation, which was the subject of very considerable parliamentary debate and discussion, was not truncated by a guillotine that was going to fix when you were going to vote on the matter. It was given full and complete parliamentary scrutiny through the parliamentary committee system. This was legislation that had been clearly foreshadowed by a Prime Minister before an election and that the government re-elected would seek a mandate for and then enact. Even though there was a clear mandate from the Australian people after an election, this new set of legislative measures were the subject of very thorough parliamentary scrutiny. I think the legislation very much improved as a result. There were some changes. Those who were around at the time may remember that there were changes that related to the way food would be taxed. That was the subject of debate and dialogue and discussion; something that is being denied in the very way this legislation is proposed to be dealt with.

This is very substantial and significant legislation that is going to impact very significantly on the wellbeing of the broad Australian community and many people are going to be significantly prejudiced as a result of increased costs of living, particularly in relation to energy bills. These are matters about which they ought to be able to express their opinions and be heard. Members should not be denied the opportunity to express the views of their constituents on these substantial pieces of legislation.

While some of these measures might have been appropriate for grouping together, in my view there should have been separate debates in relation to the packages of legislation that is before us, rather than it being a cognate debate for something like 19 separate pieces of legislation. We have a situation in which we now know the parliamentary program that had been set aside was insufficient to allow every member to be able to participate in this debate. I find it most regrettable that very significant legislation which it is going to impact upon people's lives—their cost of living and the very way in which they conduct their businesses—is apparently not considered a matter that people ought to be able to bring to notice. Even in the last few days, I have come to know of people from my constituency, who are aware that there is to be a committee hearing and who know that it will not be long, making submissions to the parliamentary committee, and I am encouraging them to do so because I think their views ought to be heard. I would look for an opportunity to speak on this legislation again—I have already spoken on it—if I could, because I have heard from other constituents. For example, there is a gentleman who runs a dry-cleaning business, and the cost of power for his business has been increasing so significantly—

See this speech in context