Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

(1) That a Joint Select Committee on Australia's Clean Energy Future Legislation be appointed to inquire into and report on the provisions of the following bills:

(a) Clean Energy Bill 2011;

(b) Clean Energy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011;

(c) Clean Energy (Income Tax Rates Amendments) Bill 2011;

(d) Clean Energy (Household Assistance Amendments) Bill 2011;

(e) Clean Energy (Tax Laws Amendments) Bill 2011;

(f) Clean Energy (Fuel Tax Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011;

(g) Clean Energy (Customs Tariff Amendment) Bill 2011;

(h) Clean Energy (Excise Tariff Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011;

(i) Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment Bill 2011;

(j) Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment Bill 2011;

(k) Clean Energy (Unit Shortfall Charge—General) Bill 2011;

(l) Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge—Auctions Bill 2011;

(m) Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge—Fixed Charge) Bill 2011;

(n) Clean Energy (International Unit Surrender Charge) Bill 2011;

(o) Clean Energy (Charges—Customs) Bill 2011;

(p) Clean Energy (Charges—Excise) Bill 2011;

(q) Clean Energy Regulator Bill 2011;

(r) Climate Change Authority Bill 2011; and

(s) Steel Transformation Plan Bill 2011.

(2) That the committee consist of 12 members, three members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, two members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips, one Greens member, one non-aligned member, two senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, two senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and one Greens senator.

(3) That every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

(4) That the persons appointed for the time being to serve on the committee shall constitute the committee notwithstanding any failure by the Senate or the House of Representatives to appoint the full number of senators or members referred to in this resolution.

(5) That the committee elect a Government member as its chair.

(6) That the committee elect a member as its deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee, and at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting.

(7) That, in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote.

(8) That four members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include at least one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either house.

(9) That the committee have power to call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced.

(10) That the committee may conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit.

(11) That the committee have the power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives.

(12) That the committee report on or before 4 October 2011.

(13) That the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.

(14) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur with the action accordingly.

Today I am moving a motion to refer the bills that were moved earlier today to a joint parliamentary committee to enable closer scrutiny of the bills. Given the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee process and the extensive debate already conducted, the government considers this to be the appropriate mechanism. Carbon pricing and climate change policy have been widely debated in Australia for more than a decade, including through some 35 parliamentary committee inquiries. This will make No. 36.

The first review of emissions trading by an Australian government was in 1998, some 13 years ago. There was extensive policy work undertaken by the former, Howard government, most notably by Peter Shergold, which concluded that pricing carbon through a market based mechanism was the best approach. In addition, of course, Professor Ross Garnaut has conducted two major reviews on Australia's best policy options for tackling climate change. The government's Clean Energy Future package was developed through a parliamentary committee process, the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee, which met for nine months before completing its work in July this year. The federal coalition, the Greens and Independents were invited to participate in the MPCCC. Only the coalition declined.

Since the establishment of the MPCCC in September 2010, the government has engaged widely, including through the business and NGO roundtables. In February, the government released the framework for its carbon pricing policy and sought feedback. Draft legislation was released for consultation in late July and over 1,300 submissions were received. This contrasts with the coalition's introduction of Work Choices, where there were only eight days to make a submission to a Senate committee inquiry that reported back one week later. It was the most significant reform to workplace relations in Australian history—legislation that stripped away the rights of working Australians—but there was no opportunity to view the legislation before it was introduced into the parliament in 2005.

By contrast, we have had countless consultations, inquiries and reports. The time has come to deliver a low-carbon economy of the future and give business and investors the certainty they have been asking for. The Liberals certainly do not need another long inquiry to decide how they are going to vote. The whole country knows how Tony Abbott is going to vote: he is going to vote no. He continually says that that is the case. He has said that he stakes his political future on opposition to this legislation. So spending months more on this is not going to tell us anything that we do not already know; it will just cost business the certainty that they need and that they are asking for. The Australian community want action on climate change. They want us to get on with it.

The government has been open, transparent and consultative about this process. We have shared with the Australian community all the available research that has informed our thinking. There was, of course, a time when the Leader of the Opposition believed in action on climate change. There was a time, towards the end of the Howard government and then in opposition, when all those opposite supported an emissions trading scheme. This is an opportunity for the opposition to demonstrate that they can put the national interest ahead of self-interest, but I do not think that will be the case.

Instead we will have, once again, the Leader of the Opposition—the walking vuvuzela—walking around just saying, 'no, no, no,' to any initiative of the government because there is just one sound that he makes. In his press conference today the Leader of the Opposition claimed that this legislation is being rushed through in spite of the fact that there will be a whole month of debate in this parliament about this legislation.

The government has also indicated to the opposition and the crossbenchers that we are more than prepared to sit extra hours in the coming fortnight in order to make sure that everyone can participate in this debate. I will leave it to those opposite, who say on the one hand that they want extra debate on this but who, on the other hand, say that they are opposed to sitting extra hours to facilitate that debate, to explain that process. Perhaps they will change their minds.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you going to move a motion about extra hours?

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will certainly move a motion about extra hours. I have attempted in my style as Leader of the House to get consensus. I have approached the Manager of Opposition Business about that to ensure that that is the case.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is a debate about a motion to establish a joint select committee of the House. It is not a motion about extra sitting hours. If the Leader of the House wants to move a motion about extra sitting hours then we will debate it when he does so. If he has run out of material he does not need to fill his time. I am happy to let him off the hook.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order. The member for Sturt will resume his seat.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They are very desperate to oppose at every single opportunity. We will have the debate on this process. It will begin tomorrow. The debate will begin, the bills have all been introduced, members will be able to participate and people in the broader community will be able to make submissions and participate in the joint committee process. They will be able to do that.

I do note that unlike every single committee established by the former, coalition government, without exception, the government is not seeking to have a government majority on this committee. That is indicative of the approach which we have taken, which is an inclusive approach. It is one that has said, 'Let's get the submissions from scientists on the science,'—not the flat-earthers, but the scientists on the science. When it comes to the economists we think that there should be an opportunity for economists to make submissions about the appropriate mechanisms to find the cheapest way to deliver a reduction in carbon emissions.

Those opposite, of course, would rather listen to the submissions of the Citizens Electoral Council and all sorts of flat-earth groups—the League of Rights—the sorts of people who were demonstrating outside my office with the member for Indi a couple of weeks ago. They were there with their signs, 'Tolerance is our demise,' outside an office in Marrickville Road. How to make friends with multicultural Australia: 'Tolerance is our demise' is their approach! It is little wonder that they are opposed to setting up this committee, which will add to the transparency.

There will be a process whereby the committee will report prior to any votes being held in the parliament. For those people who have been here a while, that never occurred under Work Choices or under the GST legislation. There was never the certainty provided that this government is prepared to provide. That is what this motion is doing. The fact is that this position will allow for proper participation. It will allow for that participation whilst the carbon bills are being discussed in the second reading debate.

I note that there have been some figures given by those opposite about the amount of time that would be allowed for debate per bill on this. We were allowed 30 seconds per member per GST bill before this parliament. Indeed, that was an improvement. That was the best practice of the former, coalition government, unlike what they did in the Work Choices legislation. We will allow members to participate.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No-one should look backwards. You're looking in the past. Why don't you call an election on it?

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can understand that the member for Goldstein is humiliated by this issue, having taken on a job with the then Leader of the Opposition as the shadow minister for emissions trading. He was the shadow minister for emissions trading but he says he is against emissions trading. Unbelievable! It is like being a shadow minister for the environment who is against the environment, or a shadow minister for employment who is against employment. It is absurd; the member for Goldstein says that he never supported an emissions trading scheme but he was prepared to take on the job as the shadow minister for emissions trading. It is no wonder that the member for Wentworth gives character assessments on the member for Goldstein to anyone who asks for one.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the motion by Leader of the House to establish the Joint Standing Committee on Australia's Clean Energy Future Legislation. The opposition will amend this motion and we will oppose this motion. We will vote against it even if our amendments are carried for the simple reason that the change to the climate and the need to have a carbon tax, according to the government post the election, is the most important crisis facing the country, so vitally important that it requires a broken promise from the Prime Minister to try and bring a bill into this parliament and pass it before the end of the year, to gag the debate and to truncate the process of this parliament which has established a selection committee process and a number of House committees.

So vitally important is this legislation that the Prime Minister said before the election, 'There will be no carbon tax under any government I lead' and the Treasurer said before the election that the suggestion that there would be a carbon tax was a 'ludicrous proposition being put by the opposition'. What did we see after the election? We saw that promise junked by this Prime Minister and this Treasurer in very short order following the forming of this government. We have seen since that time a complete inability of the government to explain to the Australian people why we must have a carbon tax that will push up the cost of living, export our emissions as trade exposed industries move to overseas destinations, export jobs, attack the steel industry and the coal industry and, more importantly, put up the price of every good and service across Australia thereby pushing up the cost-of-living pressures that Australian families are already facing.

The government came in here today, having trashed the selection committee process and the House committee process, expecting this opposition and this parliament to establish a joint select committee on Australia's Clean Energy Future legislation. Why are they doing this? They are doing it because they know that the selection committee would refer these bills to the five specialist committees of this House that exist to scrutinise government legislation. This is a package of 19 bills—not one bill, 19 bills; more than 1,000 pieces of legislation—from a government that has been unable to answer questions in question time about the detail of this carbon tax legislation that we have routinely exposed over months. The government decided that it is very important that the specialist committees of this House are not given the opportunity to scrutinise this legislation. On this side of the House our view is that it is very important for the specialist committees of the House to scrutinise this package of 19 bills to try and finally get some answers for the parliament and the people who want to know the detail.

The Australian people could quite rightly assume that this is a government that is flying blind. This is a government without a rudder. It is a government without a captain who has authority and without a rudder to guide the ship. The whole purpose of the House committees that the selection committee is responsible for is to scrutinise government legislation to ensure that the legislation reflects the government's promises. The Australian people expect an opposition and an entire parliament to properly scrutinise these 19 bills, but this government has decided to truncate that process. This government has decided to trash the selection committee process.

The crossbenchers have routinely stood up for the process of the selection committee. The crossbenchers stood in this House two sitting weeks ago on a Thursday morning and voted against sensible opposition motions to refer bills and to ask the member for Dobell to come into the House. One after the other they stood up and said the most important reform in this so-called new paradigm—they agreed on it with the Leader of the House and me after the last election—was to establish a selection committee process and a committee structure that would have specialist committees. Why this is so relevant is that we are now debating a joint select committee designed to truncate the selection committee process and the House specialist committees. That is why the opposition will not support it.

Out of the goodness of my heart I facilitated an early start of the parliament at midday today to allow these bills to be introduced. Yet again I made the mistake of believing that the government was acting in good faith. But that is done; the bills have been introduced. Now there is an opportunity for those bills to sit on the table for at least a week, as is the normal process in this parliament. Bills of such importance should sit on the table for at least a week to give the shadow minister, the back bench, the government and opposition members the opportunity to formulate their ideas about such significant legislation.

Let us remember that this carbon tax will change our economy in a more fundamental way than any other change since Federation. Yet the government is gagging the debate and truncating the process of referrals to specialist House committees. The government should have allowed the bills to sit on the table. It should have started the debate next week. The selection committee should have had the opportunity to refer these bills to the specialist committees of this House for proper scrutiny so that the parliament does not make the inadvertent errors for which this government has become famous. One mistake after another has been made by the Labor government, whether under the prime ministership of the member for Griffith or under the current Prime Minister's watch. So I have absolutely no doubt that there will be mistakes in this legislation. There will be mistakes; the government is famous for it. It is probably the most incompetent and inept government run by a group of the most inept and incompetent ministers since Federation, and that includes governments which have previously been described that way. Unfortunately, three members who have been described that way are sitting on the front bench of the government today—and aren't they looking as if they are embarrassed about this legislation and the performance of the government?

There are five specialist committees that the member for Flinders wanted to refer these bills to: the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics; the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Environment and the Arts; the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture, Resources, Fisheries and Forestry; the Standing Committee on Regional Australia; and the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs. Those committees would have had the necessary skills of members of both sides of the House—certainly there would be opposition members with the necessary skills—to scrutinise the most fundamental change to our economy in Australia's history. But this government said they would truncate that process and instead establish a joint select committee with the most ludicrous composition of a committee that I have ever seen.

The composition of this committee as proposed by the government would see the government having five members, the opposition having four members and the crossbenches having three members. I know that the government frontbenchers cannot count—I know the Leader of the House struggles with his arithmetic—but if we look at the composition of this parliament we find that in the House of Representatives 48 per cent of members are Labor members, 48 per cent are coalition members, 0.7 per cent are Greens members and 3.3 per cent are Independent members, including the member for O'Connor, who was elected on a coalition platform. In the Senate 40 per cent of the members are ALP members, 44.7 per cent are coalition members and 11.8 per cent are Greens members. The DLP is having another run in the park—they have 1.3 per cent of the members of the Senate—and the Independents have 1.3 per cent. In both chambers 45 per cent of the members are Labor, 46.9 per cent are coalition, 4.4 per cent are Greens, 2.2 per cent are Independents, 0.4 per cent are DLP and 0.4 per cent are independent National Party. So on any measure the composition of this committee that is proposed by the government—five members of the government and three members of the cross benches, giving them eight members; and four members from the opposition—is patently ludicrous. The opposition is to have 33 per cent of the members of this joint select committee, yet it represents 47 per cent of the members of both houses. I know the Leader of the House has rigged a few elections internally in the Labor Party over the years and has rigged a few outcomes, but this really takes the cake.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. He should withdraw and apologise. You cannot accuse someone of fraud.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the House has made his point. The member for Sturt would assist the House if he withdrew that allegation.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw unreservedly.

Quite clearly this is Sussex Street comes to Canberra. This is Tammany Hall comes to Canberra. This is the kind of jackboot democracy we have come to expect from this Leader of the House and this government. We will be moving an amendment to this motion. Our amendment will be that, in paragraph 2, omit:

… two members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips, one Greens member …

and substitute 'three members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the opposition whip or whips'.

That amendment would much more accurately reflect the make-up of the parliament. It would reflect five members of the government, five members of the opposition and two crossbenchers—one Greens and one non-aligned member. That amendment would at least make an attempt to properly reflect the composition of both chambers, and certainly the opposition would regard that as the kind of amendment that should be supported by the crossbenches. Hopefully, the government would see the merits of a composition of this joint select committee that was made up of five members of the government, five members of the opposition, one Greens member and one non-aligned member. That is the amendment that I will be moving at the end of my contribution.

In terms of the precedence for this, it is patently transparent that no joint select committee has been put together in this place that so inaccurately reflects the make-up of the parliament. When the CPRS bills were investigated by the Senate Economics Legislation Committee, there were three members of the ALP, four members of the coalition and two independents in 2009. There have been other examples in recent times where there were much better reflections of the chamber. So I ask the crossbenchers and even the government to support that amendment to this motion.

But I reiterate: if the government were being honest about their carbon tax legislation, their plan for a carbon tax, their change of policy and their breach of faith with the Australian people, they would do what John Howard did. John Howard changed his mind about a goods and services tax, so John Howard announced the policy. He held an election. He won the election. He received a mandate for a goods and services tax. He introduced the legislation. There were inquiries which lasted months—120 days was the length of the inquiry under the goods and services tax. The legislation was then voted on and passed in both houses. That is the process of a Prime Minister who has authority. That is the process of a Prime Minister who has confidence in their own ability and their own argument. He was prepared to take the goods and services tax to the people and ask the people to determine whether they wanted it—and the people said yes. He received a mandate and he introduced a goods and services tax.

This government changes its mind in the dead of the night, decides to introduce a carbon tax, breaks a fundamental promise made to the Australian people before the election and then expects the opposition to support it. We will not. I move the following amendment:

(1) Paragraph 2, omit "two members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips, one Greens member", substitute "three members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips".

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that the motion be agreed to. To this, the honourable member for Sturt has moved an amendment. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.

Greg Combet (Charlton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the motion in the terms moved by the Leader of the House. Today the government introduced 18 bills as part of the Clean Energy Future package. Of course, these bills will be debated concurrently and ample time will be made available in the period during which the House is sitting in coming days for members to have their say about those bills. It is entirely appropriate to establish a joint select committee in the terms that have been moved by the Leader of the House and on the basis of the structure that has been proposed by the Leader of the House as a manner to deal with this general policy question, which has, of course, been considered by this parliament on many occasions in the past.

In fact, the first inquiry that considered a response to climate change was conducted in the Australian Parliament in 1994—no fewer than 17 years ago. There have been no fewer than 35 parliamentary committee inquiries looking at the issue of climate change and the policy responses that are appropriate in the better part of the last two decades. It has been exhaustively discussed and debated; there have been successive and numerous committees of inquiry of this parliament having a look at this issue in considerable detail. Indeed, the Clean Energy Future package at the centrepiece of it is a carbon pricing mechanism, which is an emissions trading scheme. The first review of emissions trading by an Australian government was in 1999—no fewer than 12 years ago.

There was extensive policy work undertaken by the former Howard government. Those sitting opposite at present were members of that government. The most notable work was undertaken by Professor Peter Shergold—it was exhaustive—and he concluded that pricing carbon was the best approach. It formed the basis of a policy that the coalition took to the 2007 election, a policy that bears remarkable resemblance to many of the features of the government's Clean Energy Future package. It is not possible for those opposite to say that they are unfamiliar with the policy issues, that they have not participated in quite extensive public policy research work, evidence-gathering and stakeholder consultation over recent years, because the fact of the matter is that for the better part of 10 years the coalition have been actively engaged. So, too, have many other parties within this parliament, including, of course, the Greens and Independent members of this House, who have been very actively engaged, particularly over the last 10 months, in consideration of these issues.

There have been numerous inquiries external to the parliament and related to the policy development process. Professor Ross Garnaut has conducted and completed two major reviews on Australia's best policy options for tackling climate change. The government's Multi-Party Climate Change Committee, which includes representatives of the House and of the Senate, met for nine months to consider the development of the Clean Energy Future package. The coalition were invited to participate in the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee, and, of course, they refused. Notwithstanding all of this period—the many years of policy development and policy discussion; the 35 parliamentary inquiries into this area of policy; all of the work of the Shergold review conducted for the Howard government; and the detailed policy, including on emissions trading, that was taken to the 2007 election by the coalition—the coalition have now come to a position where they oppose this policy principle.

Indeed, the talking points that were adverted to in question time today—they were distributed amongst members of the coalition—are quite instructive because they demonstrate the abandonment of market principles in formulating their policy response to this issue.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Greg Combet (Charlton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If we go back only two years, under the leadership of the member for Wentworth—and the shadow minister for emissions trading, as I recall it, may well have been the member for Goldstein at the time—the coalition entered into agreement with the government about the terms of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

Opposition members interjecting—

I can only go on what I have been told. We understand it was considered by the coalition party room and there was agreement on this matter. In fact, I was involved directly in the discussions with the then Leader of the Opposition and the member for Groom from time to time about the nature of that consideration.

At that point in time the Liberal Party were still adhering to market principles in the formulation of economic policy—something, of course, that is fundamentally important and has been a guiding set of principles to the development of economic policy reforms in this country for many, many years. Where are they now? They have retreated to protectionism and xenophobia—absurd subsidies that will do nothing to deliver a price incentive in our economy to cut pollution and drive investment in clean energy. The coalition spent a long time going around the buoy on these policy matters over a very lengthy period of time.

The joint select committee is an entirely appropriate way for the parliament to consider the legislation that has been put forward here in the context of all of the history that I have outlined of the consideration of this particular policy issue. It is appropriately structured, it will consider evidence from various stakeholders—people from the community, businesses, non-government organisations and others who may wish to come forward, make a submission and provide evidence—but it will also be informed by the history that I have pointed to. The coalition members of that committee—those who may be appointed to the membership of the committee by the coalition—could well represent much of the understanding of this policy over recent years. The government members will be well versed in these policy matters. Members of the Greens are proposed, and an Independent member of parliament is proposed, in the structure of that committee.

This is an effective, efficient and appropriate way for the parliament to proceed to examine these bills in a time frame, reporting by 4 October, which also allows adequate opportunity for proper consideration of these matters, the conducting of the inquiries that the committee may wish to pursue and the taking of evidence and submissions. It provides an adequate opportunity for the bills to be properly considered and for all of the history of the evidence and consultation to be taken into account in formulating a report by the proposed reporting date of 4 October, which is in several weeks time. It will be an efficient way for the parliament to deal with the important consideration of these bills.

It is difficult to understand why those opposite would not recognise that that is an appropriate way of dealing with it, although, when one considers the fact that they have already made up their mind and have campaigned on the basis of fear, misinformation, misrepresentation and outright deceit, it is not surprising that all we are going to experience and hear from those opposite is delay, 'no', delaying tactics, and opposing everything the government puts forward to deal efficiently and effectively with these issues in appropriate transparency and accountability. So it is not surprising at all to see the resistance to the motion by the Leader of the House, because we all know that the coalition's mind is made up. It does not matter about the merits of the case. It does not matter about the science. The scientific evidence is absolutely clear that climate change is occurring—that warming is occurring—yet the Leader of the Opposition criticises scientists and will not accept the scientific evidence.

It is also absolutely clear that the most important way of responding to this very diabolical challenge, from a domestic economic and environmental standpoint, is to rely upon a market mechanism for dealing with this. That is the evidence. That is the opinion. That is the fact of the matter. That is what has been submitted by numerous economists for a considerable period of time. It was the subject of consideration by the shadow minister in his thesis 20-odd years ago—the importance of market mechanisms. Yet what do we hear from the opposition? They are not fairly prepared to consider the policy merits of a market mechanism in dealing with this issue. They are not prepared to engage. They are not prepared to be part of the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee, which would have afforded them the last nine months of policy involvement to be engaged in the policy design. They did not want to be involved in that. They now do not support the establishment of a joint select committee for dealing with this particular issue. They have never at any point in recent months been prepared to engage constructively on the policy question. All that they are about is tactics of opposing, of saying no and of refusing to cooperate. That is again informing their approach to the issue of the motion that has been moved by the Leader of the House.

There is a fair deal of hypocrisy in all of this as well, because, albeit I was not a member of the House at the time, I was certainly conscious from my engagement in the political processes of the way in which the Howard government often dealt with pieces of legislation and the way in which they approached their responsibilities when they sat on this side of the House. Many, many times debates were gagged on a number of bills, particularly by the current Leader of the Opposition in his then role as the Leader of the House. Debates were gagged on Telstra privatisation bills, on the Work Choices bill, on anti-terror laws, on migration amendments, on fuel tax bills, on other fuel tax legislation, on tax law amendments, on a new business tax system, on petroleum resource rent tax legislation and on the Australian Research Council. All of this is evidence of the hypocrisy engaged in by those opposite. If they wished to play a constructive role, they would support the motion that is before the House, engage in an efficient way in the consideration of these bills and contribute constructively to the business of this parliament. But all we see is negativity and opposition. I commend the motion to the House.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move an amendment to the amendment which has been moved by the Manager of Opposition Business:

That paragraph (2) be amended as follows:

That the committee consist of 14 members, four members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, three members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips, one Greens member, one non-aligned member, two senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, two senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and one Greens senator.

I will speak briefly to my amendment to the amendment. The amendment moved by the Manager of Opposition Business would seek to appoint an additional Liberal member from the House of Representatives to the committee but de-elect the Greens party member from that committee. The government are prepared to show how flexible and reasonable we are prepared to be by allowing an extra Liberal member to be elected to this committee. However, there are things we are not prepared to do, given that the member for Melbourne was an active participant in the MPCCC, something that the opposition declined to participate in. They declined to participate in the process. Now they come along here and, with the comments of the Manager of Opposition Business, have made it very clear that what they are about is just delay, delay and delay, and at the end of it all they will say no. That is their process. They sat on their hands for 12 years in government. They were frozen in time while the world warmed around them. They refused to participate in the processes. They did not just refuse to participate in taking action here in Australia, they refused—after signing the Kyoto protocol—to ratify the Kyoto protocol. This is in spite of the fact that Australia, under Minister Hill, got a very good deal out of the Kyoto protocol at the conference, whereby Australia's target under the Kyoto protocol was 108 per cent. That is because Australia is a high carbon economy.

That situation was acknowledged by the international community and Australia would have been permitted to increase its emissions based upon 1990 levels. But those opposite walked away from it. They said it would destroy the economy if we ratified the Kyoto protocol—and yet they say they met the target. They said it would destroy the economy if we tried to meet the targets—but we met them anyway. That is the illogicality of the position that they have held with regard to taking action on climate change.

Australia is prepared to take action now under this government. This amendment I am moving today will allow the additional member from the opposition to participate in the committee. We are pleased that the opposition has decided to get on board, get with the program, and participate in this joint committee but we will keep an appropriate balance. There will be a member of the opposition appointed and an additional member of the government in order to facilitate that process.

I noticed when the Manager of Opposition Business spoke about committees' composition that the ones he referred to were ones of the Labor government. That is because there is no committee they can point to in the entire time in which they were in office in which the government did not have an absolute majority on that committee. Not one. Not one in 12 years—regardless of the composition in the Senate, regardless of the composition in the House of Representatives and regardless of the composition of the overall parliament. Not one. And we had to indeed take action with the crossbenchers to make sure that the crossbenchers got their share of questions during the parliament, because of the way that they responded.

We have not done that. The amendment to this amendment will ensure that there is proper participation from both houses. It will ensure that the government does not have an absolute majority, so we do not seek to have that imposed on the parliament, but this is a fair amendment to the amendment moved by the member for Sturt. I support the amendment. I will then support the amendment as amended by my motion and then will support the motion before the House.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition does not support the latest ruse of the Leader of the House. We do not support an amendment to the amendment because, transparently, adding one member of the opposition and one member of the government does not change the proportions. I know that the government is in hock with the Greens. I know they are in league with the Greens. I know the member for Marrickville is extremely sensitive about upsetting the Greens—

Greg Combet (Charlton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Grayndler.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Grayndler—which covers Marrickville—is particularly concerned about upsetting the Greens. We know that and we know that he will do anything in his power to ensure that the Greens maintain their overrepresentation on this committee.

Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One!

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Two out of three crossbench members. The poor old member for Lyne is a bit slow. The reality is that the proposal being put by the government for this joint select committee establishes five members of the government, four members of the opposition and three members of the crossbenches. Of those three members of the crossbenches two are Greens—one in the Senate and one in the House of Representatives—and one is a non-aligned member. The last time I looked at the proportions in this place and in the Senate there were 10 Greens and seven non-aligned members. That does not equate to having two-thirds of the representatives on this joint select committee.

Transparently, the Leader of the House's amendment to my amendment is a pea and thimble trick. It is a three-card trick. It is designed to fool the crossbenchers into believing that somehow he is changing the proportions on this committee. I have nothing against the member for Melbourne. I do not share all of his political views but as a person I think he is a very fine representative. Of course, I would rather his seat had been won by a Liberal but I am sure he will make a contribution. But whether the member for Melbourne needs to be on this joint select committee—as well as a Greens senator—is, quite frankly in the opposition's view, over-egging the omelette. There is nothing at all wrong with having a joint select committee, if it is to occur, that includes five members of the government, five members of the opposition and two other members that are one Greens senator and one non-aligned member. That proportion more accurately reflects the breakdown of the parliament, including both the Senate and the House of Representatives. In fact, it is understating the representation of the coalition in this present parliament, because we actually have more seats and more senators than the government.

The Leader of the House's amendment to my amendment is designed to fool and trick the parliament and the crossbenchers and we will not support it. This change to our economy is a $27 billion tax raised over the forward estimates. It proposes expenditure of $31 billion and, in addition, a clean energy fund of $10 billion. Why on earth would the government quibble about the length of time that the committee should report? Why would it apply the gag motion to these pieces of legislation and why on earth would it now seek—in the petulant, schoolboy way that we are seeing from the Leader of the House—these Tammany-Hall tactics to amend the opposition's amendment that more accurately reflects the proportions of this parliament?

Of course we will be opposing the government's amendment to my amendment. We would still call on the House to support the amendment that I originally put, which would remove one member from the crossbenches while still maintaining a Greens senator and a non-aligned member and ensure that the opposition has five members and the government has five members. If the government were serious about getting the opposition on board on this policy, if it were serious about trying to convince the parliament and the opposition that it actually had a good case for a carbon tax, it would have no problem with having an inquiry with 12 members—five from the government, five from the opposition and two from the crossbenches.

The reality is that the government does not have the courage of its convictions. It does not have a mandate for a carbon tax. It went to an election on the basis of a policy where there would be no carbon tax—when the Treasurer and the Prime Minister both made that promise—and yet today we are debating a joint select committee being established to inquire into a carbon tax package of bills. Nothing could be a more fundamental breach of faith with the Australian people. We saw in question time today the anger that exists in the community—

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the Liberal Party!

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I agree with the member for Grayndler on one thing: he should get out there and do more arguing the case against these people outside his electorate office. He should argue that case as much as possible, because it is doing the government no end of harm. As I am getting a reasonable score from the member for Windsor, I might take that as a hint he might support my amendment and cut out while I am in front.

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the substantive motion and the amendment to the amendment. What we have seen in the course of this debate is the government doing nothing more than showing a generosity of spirit and a willingness to show flexibility and to engage with the opposition in an attempt to have a good debate on this legislation and to engage with the community on this legislation. What we are seeing from the opposition is nothing more than a continuation of their mindless opposition and negativity.

This morning in the parliament we witnessed a historic moment. We witnessed the Prime Minister introduce into this parliament a package of legislation which comes at the end of one of the most extensive debates that has gripped this community in over a decade. Over 18 pieces of legislation form the CEF package, which will once and for all give the opportunity for this parliament to act on climate change and to act in a meaningful and positive way. This legislation will put a price on carbon, and we know that it is important to put a price on carbon because this is the most efficient and effective way for us to transform our economy and to ensure that we can reduce our dependence on carbon and transform our business processes.

But it is not only a package of legislation which puts a price on carbon; it is a package of legislation which assists households through that transformation process. It provides compensation to pensioners and households. It is a historic readjustment of our taxation system for wage and salary earners. The legislation introduced into the House this morning effectively means that over one million Australians will no longer have to put in a tax return because of the increase in the low-income tax threshold. It is a historic piece of legislation and what we are hearing from those opposite, in the context of an international race to modernise our economies, is that we should be handicapped, we should not move ahead to modernise our economy to ensure that we transform the economy in a way that gives us a low-carbon future.

We have a proposition today which enables this parliament to, in an orderly way, consider the package of legislation that comes after one of the most extensive debates that has gripped this parliament and the 42nd Parliament—a process which enables a joint select committee to, over the course of the next fortnight, consider and hear submissions in a detailed way on the legislation which is before the parliament and then report back and have an extensive debate here and in the Senate.

Those opposite oppose it because they are opposed to expertise, they are opposed to knowledge. They are opposed to economists, scientists and Public Servants. They are opposed to receiving any expert advice in this area. We say quite simply that they should get on board; they should get out of the way; they should stop their instinctive habit of just blocking, opposing, delaying, confusing and confounding. They should vote for this motion. They should get on board and vote for the package of legislation which will enable us to move forward.

You can contrast the approach that we are taking with the approach that they on the other side of the House have taken in the past with equally significant pieces of legislation. They rammed the GST legislation through the House without the capacity for debate. They rammed the Work Choices legislation through the House without the capacity for debate. We say that, when you contrast our approach to the approach that they have taken in the past, they are exposed as being nothing more than obstructionist and hypocrites in this matter. They should get out of the way. They should enable this legislation to be debated properly and they should support the motion before the House as amended.

Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will speak briefly to the debate that is going on. I have listened with interest to the member for Sturt. We will all hear his voice quite often over the next few weeks, but I think I have come up with a way of shutting him down from time to time. If the member for Sturt does not object and if other members of the House are getting a bit tired of hearing his voice, I might raise that message board occasionally and hopefully he will respond accordingly.

I was a member of the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee. I think it has been discussed already that there was an opportunity for the coalition to be involved—and it is a great shame they were not. Greg Hunt, in particular—as well as Malcolm Turnbull and others—would have been real assets in the debate on this very important reform. I think that history will probably show that they will regret not having been part of the multi-party committee process. I do not mean to say, though, that everyone on the committee agreed with everyone else. I think it is common knowledge that the minister and I had some disagreements over various road transport initiatives which, it was claimed, would have lead to some sort of behavioural change but which in my view would not have done.

But I think having been on the committee and having been part of what has ended up being quite a successful agreement has meant that, although there are still a couple of loose ends that will probably be tied up in the committee process and in the parliament itself, we have been able to come together and assist in getting a formula together. That is not an easy thing to do. It is not an easy reform and it is not short-term; it is very long-term in nature. Therefore, the way that we did it was different to the gratuitous political arrangements by which we normally do things in here for short-term benefit and for our own benefit as political players. With this legislation, parts of the parliament are trying to do something good for people—the future generations of this country—who have not even been born yet.

It is a great tragedy that the debate has been bogged down by the use of the words 'tax' and 'lie'. It is common knowledge that John Howard was going to apply a tax or fixed price leading into an emissions trading scheme. It is common knowledge that Malcolm Turnbull was going to have a fixed price—or a tax, as people prefer to call it now—leading into an emissions trading scheme. The situation is similar in the current parliament. I use the word 'parliament' because the government is in a minority position. I am sure that, like me, the Prime Minister would have preferred an emissions trading scheme to a fixed price. But, in order to get the institutional arrangements in place, there would still have had to be a period where there was a fixed price—and that, by the definition of economists at least, is strictly a tax. So, even though everybody is virtually on the same page, the debate is still being degraded by arguments about a 'tax' and a 'lie'. Although all that may be very interesting in terms of the politics of this place, I do not think it is very interesting in terms of the future of this country and particularly the future of the globe and the role that Australia can play.

I remember that under the former government this parliament went to war before the debate was finished, and I was offended by that as a member of parliament who was on the list to speak about whether we should go to war. The Prime Minister of the day declared war without representatives of various communities being given the chance to have their say. People may suggest that things do not happen in a hurry, but they occasionally do when there is a political advantage to be gained.

I say to the member for Sturt and others that, although there is a lot of talk about the representation of the various parties on the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee, the government do not have the majority. I give this undertaking: if the coalition or any other member of the parliament has a constructive agenda to address by way of amendments the real issue of climate change and how we can play a role in bringing in a cleaner future—I do not mean nonsense amendments to delay—I would be more than happy to look constructively at those amendments even if there is a requirement for an extension of time or for other arrangements to be put in place, and I am sure that others on the crossbenches would be happy to do so as well.

We are going to have a period of debate now about a very serious issue, and I think the debate should be serious—we should actually talk about this issue. It is a great shame that, due to the way that the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee was initially put together, the coalition did not want to be part of it. The constructive debate that took place there happened only among those who were involved, despite the fact that there were differences of opinion. I have given an undertaking to the member for Sturt and others provided that they have legitimate concerns and there is not sufficient time. However, if they are considering some sort of speak-it-out arrangement in order to delay, I will not be supporting any extensions. The ball is really in the court of the coalition members.

I know there are a number of coalition members, because a lot of them have come to see me, who are concerned about this issue, and I hope to hear very constructive contributions from them. I am sure that the minister would agree—though he may not—that those on the MPCCC do not pretend to be the holders of all knowledge on the subject. If there are legitimate issues that need to be addressed through the committee process or in the parliament during the third reading, let us see those issues come out as the debate takes place. In conclusion, when it comes to a vote, I will be supporting the amendment to the amendment.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to 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.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that the motion, as amended, be agreed to.

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

This is the debate you have when you do not have an election mandate. This is a debate about proper representation, because this government went to the election on a fundamental act of dishonesty. It pledged, as the Prime Minister said with her most sacred words, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' It was a moment of fundamental deception of the Australian people. Against that background, every member of this government knows that they went to the election on a pledge not to introduce a carbon tax. It was not a minor or incidental or passing discussion in the course of the last week. It was the focus of the fundamental debate at the core of the push for a mandate from the Australian people. The Prime Minister of Australia said there would be no carbon tax under the government she leads. The Prime Minister of Australia, 24 hours before the election, said that she ruled out a carbon tax, and the reason she did that was she knew the Australian people would not give her a mandate if she did other than reject a carbon tax prior to the election; otherwise, why did she need to make that statement? She made that statement knowing that her intention, her goal and her desire was to introduce a carbon tax. It was an act of deception, it was an act which was holding the Australian people in contempt and it was utterly unnecessary.

Against that background, there are two great issues at stake in this debate. One is about representation of the people through the inquiry process. One is about representation of the Australian public. This inquiry process matters because it is about giving the people their chance to have a say. That is why we are seeking, with the consent of the Independents, to have the inquiry process extended. Therefore, I move:

Paragraph (12), omit "4 October 2011", substitute "7 October 2011".

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment, Mr Speaker.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment moved by the member for Flinders be agreed to.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the government, I accept this amendment and say the government will be supporting it. This is an amendment that changes 4 October 2011 to 7 October 2011. If those opposite want less time between when the committee reports and when the parliament debates the report, then so be it. So we are prepared to accept the amendment. In the spirit of good faith, cooperation and generosity of spirit that characterise the way that this government is dealing with this matter, I commend the amendment to the House.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I support the amendment moved by the member for Flinders, and I think it is important to explain exactly the newest ruse of the government with respect to the inquiry into the carbon tax legislation. We have already traversed this debate at some length this afternoon. The original reporting date of 4 October is the first day of the tax summit. Clearly, the government set that date for its joint select committee because it wanted to ensure that, whatever this report from the Joint Select Committee on Australia’s Clean Energy Future Legislation finds, the tax summit would obliterate any media coverage of it.

The Leader of the House is very good at these tricky mechanisms which are designed to protect the government from its very bad decision to break the election promise it made before the last election and to introduce a carbon tax. We, on the other hand, believe that when this joint select committee reports, the media should be given the full opportunity to view and report on the scrutiny that this joint select committee will give to the 19 pieces of legislation—over 1,000 pages—that the government has introduced today.

We in the opposition have already expressed our grave disappointment at the handling of this matter by the government and the fact that they intend to gag the debate on this important legislative package—and, in an unprecedented way, they are, I believe, being supported in that, unfortunately, by the crossbenchers. They have already this afternoon established a joint select committee with proportions that give the government, the crossbenchers and the Greens a tremendous advantage, far beyond the proportions that they enjoy in both chambers of this parliament. Just to highlight the decision that has just been made: of the 14 members of the joint select committee, nine are in favour of the carbon tax and five are against. I hardly believe that that represents a fair proportion of the views in this parliament, where the coalition is represented in more seats and more Senate places than the Labor Party, which forms the government.

So the reason that I support the amendment moved by member for Flinders is that, in my view, the government should not be given the opportunity of (1) gagging the debate; (2) avoiding the selection committee process; (3) stopping the scrutiny of these 19 bills by the five specialist committees of this House of Representatives that I outlined before; and (4) burying, on the same day as the tax summit—that is, 4 October—the report of this joint select committee. Therefore, I commend this amendment to the House.

Question agreed to. Question put:

That the motion (Mr Albanese's), as amended, be agreed to.

The House divided. [18:30]

(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)

Question agreed to.