Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this very important motion before the House this afternoon, under which the Leader of the House has proposed that so much of standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent, in essence, the House conducting business between 9 am and 2 pm on Tuesday, 11 October 2011.

For us to understand the import of this motion, it is important first to understand the broader context in which this motion is being brought forward and to understand the thinking of the Leader of the House in bringing forward this motion. I am confident that he would not do so lightly. I am confident that the Leader of the House would bring forward this motion for good and sensible reasons. It is in that spirit of disinterested concern to achieve the best possible outcomes that I make my brief contribution on this motion.

I say that having had the great privilege of being personally acquainted with the Leader of the House since the mid-eighties, when he was a member of the Sydney university's student representative council, as was I. It is based upon that interaction that I am confident in saying that he would have brought this forward out of the best of all possible motives and out of a disinterested concern to achieve the best possible outcome. It is a question of considerable importance to the process of this House as to whether this motion ought to be supported. I therefore come back to the question of the broader context in which this motion is being put. The broader context is that the House has before it a package of legislation in relation to the Clean Energy Bill, forming in total a package of some 19 pieces of legislation—very detailed pieces of legislation; very complex pieces of legislation. The Clean Energy Bill itself is very lengthy. I think it is some 380 pages long. It contains, on my review of it, as I recollect, either 23 or 24 parts and each of those deals with matters of considerable substance. The question before the House, as we consider this particular procedural motion, is: what is the most effective way for this House, the people's House, to consider this package of very complex legislation?

Mr Deputy Speaker Slipper, you would be aware that the government has put to the House a particular scheme, a particular process, a particular procedure, under which this package of bills should be considered. Of course, it is against the backdrop of that particular scheme that we consider the merits of the motion before the House this afternoon. In elucidating and informing my comments on the motion before the House this afternoon, it is important that I direct the House to that scheme which was established by the government and which, in fact, was adopted by this parliament in the form of a motion that was passed some time previously. You would recollect that there is a date very shortly after Tuesday, 11 October upon which debate on the substantive bills is guillotined. In other words, debate on the substantive bills can only occur until that point and no longer. You would appreciate that I am working through the elements of this scheme, in part to make sure that I have it straight in my own mind, as a relatively recently arrived member of this House.

The consequence of those arrangements is this: there is necessarily a finite period of time for consideration of this very complex and very substantive package of measures. It is interesting to compare the period of time which is allowed for the House of Representatives, the people's House, to debate this package of legislation with an end-to-end analysis of the earlier steps in the process by which the policy was developed and fleshed out. As we assess this procedural motion in front of us, I think it is appropriate to understand the overall end-to-end context in which this package was developed. There were several stages, going back to the 2007 election, and the phase in which we were told that the emissions trading scheme was addressing the greatest moral challenge of our time. That was what might be called step No. 1 in the lengthy and convoluted process of policy development, all of which is coming to a very sharp point with the scheme the government has put before us and under which debate must be concluded by, I believe, 12 October—certainly very shortly after Tuesday, 11 October. It is against the backdrop of that scheme that we are considering the motion that is before the House this afternoon.

Mr Deputy Speaker Slipper, you would recollect—following me closely, as I am sure you are—that the first step in this end-to-end process was the emissions trading scheme, which was going to address the greatest moral challenge of our time. You would recollect that there was a crucial second step in the process by which the policy was developed. It is a step which is an essential element of the modern Labor Party's policy development process, and that step is called the backflip. That step is where you take the policy you were previously committed to and you dump it—you abandon it. I just make this observation empirically: it is an important element, it would seem, of the iterative and lengthy process by which policy is developed on an end-to-end basis. You would appreciate that the point I am making is that a series of steps occur in the policy development process as we come to the process by which the policy is crystallised into draft legislation and then brought before this House, the people's House, to determine whether it will support the legislation. Of course, it is against that backdrop that we then have to consider whether, first of all, adequate time has been allowed and, secondly, the precise question before the House, which is whether there is merit in the proposal to allow some additional five hours of debate on the clean energy package.

You would appreciate that we had the backflip, but we actually need to appreciate that that was backflip No. 1. This has been a complex end-to-end policy development process. We also had the people's assembly—another important step in the process—we had the commitment 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead', and then of course we had the announcement of the carbon tax. You would appreciate that this is a lengthy and iterative policy development process in which the Labor Party moves from extreme to extreme and back again, rather like a windscreen wiper. It is that lengthy and iterative policy development process which provides the vital context and backdrop against which we must consider the procedural merits of what is being put to the House this afternoon. I would not like it to be thought that I am revisiting this territory for any political purpose. What I am seeking to do is bring to bear this very important context and backdrop in order to understand the significance of the process which this government has put before the House to consider this legislation. We should then ask ourselves, in particular, about the motion we are considering this afternoon for the provision of an extra five hours at what might be called the pointy end of this long process.

From an initial grand Ruddist vision—if I take us back to the early stages—we move through to the essential backflip elements of the policy development process, to the introduction of the lengthy and extensive package of legislation and then to the sharp end, on 12 October, when the bills will, in fact, be the subject of a guillotine at the point beyond which there can be no additional debate in the parliament. It is a consideration of this end-to-end process which is so critical to assessing the merits of this particular motion which proposes that there ought to be an extra five hours available on Tuesday, 11 October. This, we understand, is to allow for further debate on the Clean Energy Bill. That is the backdrop. That is the essential context.

You will appreciate that I found it necessary to lay that out as the important context in which to then offer my own views as to the merits of this particular proposal. I hasten to add that I do that based upon my confidence that the Leader of the House is open to a disinterested assessment of the various virtues of the alternative schemes before the House. Clearly, such a scheme before the House is the one that the Leader of the House has proposed, which is to offer an additional five hours to allow for additional debate concerning the clean energy package.

Of course, an alternative scheme available to the House would be to say to the Leader of the House, with the greatest of respect, that we do not consider that the particular proposal he has put forward here is the best or the optimal proposal. All of us in this House are united with the Leader of the House in our clear desire to achieve optimality when it comes to the procedures to be followed by this House.

This may be setting the standard too high—I am a relatively recently arrived member—but I do not believe it is. I do not believe it is setting the standard too high to ask ourselves what is the optimal process which we ought apply when dealing with the fact that this is a large and complex package of legislation that this House has already decided, on the basis of a motion previously moved by the Leader of the House, to guillotine debate on 12 October—that is, very shortly after the relevant date for the purposes of the motion which is presently being considered by the House.

Some might say that this is a problem the Leader of the House has created for himself. Some might say that this is a difficulty which the Leader of the House has imposed. It is a roadblock he has put in front of himself on his very own road. There was no compulsion for the Leader of the House to come in here some days ago and move a motion which set 12 October as the date upon which the bills would be guillotined. The existence of that guillotine is the essential backdrop to understanding the merits of the motion presently before the House. It is so important that we all have a very clear appreciation of the essential logical nexus between the proposal currently before the House and the constraint which the House faces—you will recollect, Mr Deputy Speaker—as a consequence of a previous motion moved by the Leader of the House. The Leader of the House is himself the author of the difficulty with which all of us are now wrestling in a disinterested spirit as we seek to find the best possible solution to this very difficult challenge.

I do not say this with any pleasure. I do not say this with any lightness of heart. I do not say this with any sense of joy. There is no skip in my step or lilt in my tone as I say this, but I do say that I consider that on its merits this motion ought not be supported. I do not think this is the best scheme available to the House. I do not think it meets the test of optimality. I think we ought to reach for the best, and the best would be to abandon the guillotine completely and consider this package of bills taking all the time that is necessary. That is the approach I recommend to the House. (Time expired)

See this speech in context