Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Hansard source

I congratulate the member for Hume for at least showing up. He made a thoughtful contribution, as always, but at least he showed up to attempt to defend his own government's decision. That is far more courageous than some of his colleagues, but I will return to that in a moment.

Mr Broad interjecting—

I am coming to you, Member for Mallee, don't you worry about that! There are two issues here. The first, of course, is the substantive issue of the imposition of this additional fuel tax on the Australian community in breach of a clear election promise. The second issue is the gag order we are currently operating under. Why are we gagging this bill today? There is a very simple answer. We are gagging this bill to protect all those Liberals and Nationals representing rural and regional seats who, unlike the member for Hume and possibly the member for Mallee, are not prepared to come in here and defend this broken election promise. It is a reminder to all of us on this side that they say one thing in Canberra and another back in the electorates—but on this occasion they are not even prepared to say it in Canberra. They are not prepared to come in here and defend this new tax imposition and its impact on rural and regional Australia.

But it gets more interesting than that. We have a speakers list, as we always do when we are debating legislation, and this one is a fairly long list. There are 10 people on the list from the other side to speak today, but it is a safe haven because they know that, beyond the first four, they will not have an opportunity to speak because of the gag. They will be able to go back to their electorates and say: 'I was going to speak on that fuel tax bill but I got gagged for some reason. I don't understand why I was gagged, I don't always understand these parliamentary processes, but for some reason I didn't have the opportunity to get in there and defend you against this new tax imposition.'

I want to talk about the member for Paterson because he is on the list twice. He is on the list at two and then at about nine. I wondered what might have gone on there. Why would the member for Paterson be on the list twice? Well, at two, the member for Paterson would of course have had to come in here and defend this tax or, do the opposite, do the right thing and oppose the tax. But I think he realised that and so he shoved himself right down the list so he can go back to his electorate, like the others, and say, 'I would've been in there defending you on this matter but I wasn't given the opportunity and I don't have control over these matters.'

Let's have a look at those who are not turning up. There is the member for Eden-Monaro—he is on the list at five. How convenient is that? He will just miss out. I bet he is so disappointed!

See this speech in context