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

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the time and order of business for Tuesday, 20 September 2011, being as follows:

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

(2) Government Business shall have priority from 9am until 2 p . m . ;

(3) 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

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

For the benefit of members I will outline what is proposed—that is, next Tuesday, the House would meet at 9 am, and government business would have priority from 9 am until 2 pm. During the period from 9 am until 2 pm 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 any variation to this arrangement be made only by a motion moved by a minister.

We had some considerable discussion on Tuesday about what the process would be for the consideration of the clean energy bills package, and the House determined a process which will allow for proper consideration of this legislation: a joint parliamentary committee that will report to the parliament on 7 October. The government showed its willingness to be flexible by accepting an amendment that was moved by the opposition to alter the date of reporting from 4 October, which is what the government originally proposed. We also accommodated the opposition by expanding the membership of the committee to include an additional opposition member as well as an additional government member, once again showing in our amendment to the amendment moved by the Manager of Opposition Business that this is a government that is prepared to put in place mechanisms to facilitate appropriate consideration of this critical legislation. This, of course, differentiates us from the actions of the previous government, where on issues like Work Choices, for example, we had eight days for the entire consideration. Now, one month is more than eight days. I know that the member for Mackellar has had problems with calendars in the past, but eight days is not as much as a calendar month. That is why we have put in place these mechanisms.

Some concern has been expressed by the opposition about the amount of time that would be permitted for discussion, so one of the things that we are prepared to do—and which I indicated from the outset—is to allow for additional time so that people have the opportunity to contribute to the debate. This resolution today would add five hours at a time that is convenient to members, it being from 9 am to 2 pm. Of course, party room meetings occur at that time. There are a number of members in this parliament who do not have to go to party meetings, but, for those of us who do, the clause in the resolution I am moving about no divisions will ensure that those party processes, which are important to the functioning of both government and opposition, can take place in an orderly way. It is also convenient for the staff, and in that case I am referring not just to the personal staff of members of the House of Representatives, ministers and shadow ministers but, importantly, to the fine men and women who work to keep this parliament functioning in such an effective way: the Hansard reporters, the clerks, the advisory staff of the House of Representatives and, indeed, the fine people who work in your office, Mr Speaker. So, in terms of the functioning of the parliament, this is an appropriate way; this is certainly preferable, for example, to extending the parliament by five hours at the end of Tuesday, which would take us into the early hours of the morning.

The government indicated very early on, I must say—more than a week ago—to the Manager of Opposition Business that this was the government's intention. I foreshadow to you, Mr Speaker, that if additional time is required we will also be proposing to sit on the following Tuesday in a similar manner to add an additional five hours. I also indicate that we are prepared to sit later next week, be it on Wednesday or Thursday, when parliament usually rises at 8 pm and 5 pm respectively, because we want to make sure that everyone who wants to make a contribution to this debate is able to do so. We are doing so in a transparent way. As you are aware, there are various methods available to the government to facilitate this sort of process in a less consultative way through measures which are available to ministers such as the negation of adjournments, for example. We are not doing that. We are attempting, through a consultative process, to get an appropriate vehicle forward.

I suspect that the Manager of Opposition Business has seen a bit of sense in past days and reflected on the contradictions in his remarks when he said that on the one hand we need extra time but that on the other hand he would oppose extra time being made available. I suspect what will occur here is that the Manager of Opposition Business will speak against this motion but will not vote against it, because he knows the absurdity of that position and that contradiction. I commend the resolution to the House, and I look forward to listening to the contributions of members to this important legislation, and indeed reading the contributions of members I am not able to listen to in real time. It is now time to act on dangerous climate change. We have had 35—and with the joint parliamentary committee it is 36—parliamentary inquiries. We have had the Shergold report, we have had the Garnaut report, we have had the work that was done by the emissions trading section of the department of the environment that was established and then abolished by the former government. We have had the work that was done in the lead-up to the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, when agreement was reached across the major political parties in this House before the Liberals changed their mind and they combined with the Greens to defeat the legislation in the parliament. Had that legislation been carried we would have a price on carbon and we would have a structure in place. As the member for Wentworth said yesterday, there is a great deal of similarity between the two schemes.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

Those opposite do not want to hear about the issue of climate change. The fact is that we are determined to act on climate change. We are prepared also to ensure that there is an appropriate method of participation in this debate. I wonder whether their opposition to the extended hours for this debate is framed around trying to stop the member for Wentworth making a contribution. He appeared on the list yesterday, but he took himself off—we still don't know who put him on that list, but we know it was not the member for Wentworth—and today I note he did not appear on the list either. Today he has been deleted completely.

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

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Leader of the House should confine his remarks to the debate that is before the House, which is about extending sitting hours next Tuesday. He has been ranging very widely over many subjects, and we have ignored him, but quite frankly he needs to bring himself back to the debate.

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

The Leader of the House had linked his remarks to the motion and in totality he has been directly relevant to the motion.

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

It is extraordinary that those opposite would suggest that a debate about suspending standing orders between 9 am and 2 pm next Tuesday is not related to clean energy bills and to taking action against climate change. What I am indicating clearly to the opposition, as I always have done in a transparent way, is what we will do with the additional hours. I am doing that in a way which puts it on the record so that there can be no doubt that government business—we are going to move some other resolution or list some other bills or do some other change—is about facilitating the debate about climate change. I understand their concern about debating a clean energy future because they are embarrassed by their own position. I understand them wanting to stop the member for Wentworth making a contribution to this debate because they put him on the list and then he took himself off and now he is off completely. We are going to make sure that if he wishes to make a contribution to the debate, then we will certainly facilitate that.

This is a common sense resolution. I indicate to the House that I foreshadow that, if need be, we are prepared to sit even more hours to make sure that people can make a contribution to this discussion, which stands in stark contrast to what the House has done in the past over Work Choices, over the Tampa legislation, over going to war in Iraq and over a range of other issues where people were stopped from making a contribution. I commend the resolution to the House.

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

The Leader of the House has made a paltry argument for why we should extend sitting hours, but what he has underlined is the government's mishandling of the debate management of the carbon tax bills from start to finish. In their desperation to ram these bills through the House, on Tuesday the parliament passed, at the recommendation of the Leader of the House, a guillotine motion to cut off debate in the next sitting fortnight so that the government could ram these bills through the parliament. At the same time the government established a joint select committee to look into the clean energy legislation, the carbon tax package of bills—19 bills of over 1,000 pages—and has given each member one minute per bill in order to be able to debate the biggest structural change to our economy since Federation.

Now the government comes into the House, having applied the gag, and decides to extend sitting hours. Obviously the opposition welcomes the opportunity to debate the carbon tax bills at greater length. Of course we do. We want to scrutinise the carbon tax legislation, but how absurd to be extending sitting hours next Tuesday morning when the committee that has been established by the House is not reporting until 7 October. If the government was genuine about scrutiny, accountability and transparency and if the Greens and the crossbenchers genuinely believed that this government needed to be held to account, that they were interested in honesty, open government and transparency, why on earth would we be extending sitting hours before the inquiry into these bills is handed down on 7 October. Surely, if the government was genuine about transparency and scrutiny they would extend the sitting hours after the committee hands down its report and remove the gag motion they passed on Tuesday in order to give the parliament as much time as we, the elected members, want in order to be able to scrutinise this legislation.

Just to underline how rank this government is in terms of its treatment of the parliament and the contempt in which it holds Australian democracy, the consideration-in-detail stage on 19 pieces of legislation, of over 1,000 pages, is three hours. Three hours in two weeks. For three hours the entire parliament will get the opportunity to question the minister about the detail involved in this legislation in 19 separate bills of over 1,000 pages. That does not include the explanatory memorandums to the bills. The government clearly with their alliance partners, the Greens and the crossbenchers, have decided to force through this legislation and, in order to create a fig leaf of respectability and a pretence that they take the parliament seriously, they plan to extend sitting hours by a few hours next Tuesday morning.

The most important point to make is that this legislation has no mandate in any event. This is an illegitimate piece of legislation that has not been through an election. The government have never sought a mandate for it. In fact, the very opposite occurred in the last election. They got a non-mandate.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Deputy Chairman , Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They got a mandate not to introduce it.

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

They got a mandate not to introduce a carbon tax, as the member for Casey so rightly says. They received a mandate not to introduce a carbon tax because the Prime Minister promised six days before the election that there would be no carbon tax under any government she led. A few days before the election the Treasurer insisted that the opposition was being ludicrous and that the government would never introduce a carbon tax and the Prime Minister the day before the election said, 'I rule it out,' in answer to a question about whether she would introduce a carbon tax.

The government went to the election and received a mandate not to introduce a carbon tax and the Australian people in their goodwill and infinite goodness took them on their word that they would not introduce a carbon tax. Yet here we are in mid-September debating the introduction of a carbon tax. The Australian people have every reason to feel utterly lied to and short-changed by a government that deceived them during the election campaign.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Sturt knows—

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

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I withdraw the word 'lied'.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you.

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

They were obviously deliberately deceived and the government will receive its punishment in full measure on election day, which will hopefully be sooner rather than later, so that people can get the opportunity to have the vote on a carbon tax that they did not have at the last election. The next election will be a referendum on the carbon tax. I look forward to the election day, which will hopefully be this year or next year and not in 2013, because I do not think the public can tolerate this government much longer. I look forward to giving the public the opportunity in full measure to wreak their punishment on this bad government, which is introducing a carbon tax in spite of the promises it made before the last election.

This motion to extend sitting hours to debate the government's broken promise has no legitimacy. They have applied a gag on the debate and yet they have said they need more time to debate it. Just contemplate the illogicality of that position. Apparently they have to gag this debate but they need more time to debate it, so they need to have extra sitting hours to debate it which are not in the schedule in spite of the fact that they are still gagging the debate. Obviously, the opposition welcomes the sitting of the parliament, but let's just take the parliament through this process from the beginning. The government decided to truncate the selection committee process. They trashed parliamentary procedures. They decided not to allow the Selection Committee to refer these bills to the five specialist committees in the House of Representatives that could be looking into each of these pieces of legislation. Instead they established a joint select committee. The only purpose of this joint select committee—

Mr Bandt interjecting—

The only purpose, Member for Melbourne, of the joint select committee is to get around the Selection Committee process and to not refer these bills to the five specialist committees in the House of Representatives.

Mr Bandt interjecting—

Do not worry, Member for Melbourne, you will get your punishment too on election day—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Sturt!

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

You will not have to wait, you will be—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Sturt!

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

If you come back here that will be an amazement. Now that the public have found out about the Greens' policies you will be struggling, do not worry about that. Madam Deputy Speaker, I was responding to the provocation by the member for Melbourne.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Sturt knows—

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

The member for Melbourne should be counselled.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

full well that he should not respond to interjections. He is a longstanding member of this place and he should know the rules.

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

Some say too long, but the good burghers of the east and the north-eastern suburbs of Adelaide do not think so. The whole purpose of the joint select committee was to get around the Selection Committee process. Then, in the most extraordinary act, the government referred the Leader of the Opposition's wild rivers legislation to a second committee. Not content with having one committee on the wild rivers legislation they then referred the Leader of the Opposition's wild rivers bill to a second committee and yet they would not allow the Selection Committee to refer 19 pieces of legislation on the carbon tax—the most significant change to our economy in 111 years—to the House specialist committees.

The proper process of this House, as followed by the Howard government and the Hawke, Keating and Fraser governments before it, is that when legislation of such importance is introduced into the parliament it sits on the table for at least a week. Members of the House get the opportunity to consider it, to study it, to draft their speeches, to seek advice, to do research and to come into the House and give a considered speech. Then, when those speeches begin, if an inquiry is recommended, an inquiry is held and the legislation sits on the table again until the inquiry has met, considered all the evidence put before it and come up with recommendations. As a consequence the parliament gets the best measure of the skills available in this parliament to scrutinise legislation.

If I were the government, I would be welcoming the opportunity for someone to go over my work to make sure I do not make all the same mistakes that they have made time and time again in the last four years in their sloppy administration of government programs and legislation. I do not want to be not relevant to the debate, but let us not forget with Building the Education Revolution, home insulation or live cattle exports. How much better it would have been if the parliament had taken the time to get it right the first time rather than wasting taxpayers' money. And here we are again debating rushed legislation as if the government, this group of incompetents, could possibly get 19 pieces of legislation of over 1,000 pages right the first time. That is why this chamber needs to have maximum time to scrutinise legislation. It needs to have five specialist committees investigating these bills. The bills need to sit on the table until those inquiries are completed and then we should have the second reading debate. And then, if we need more time to sit, we should sit. But we should not be gagging this debate. We should not be truncating the selection committee process and we should not be needing extra sitting hours because the government suddenly realises they will need more time for this debate because they gagged the debate in mid-September.

I put that to the House. The opposition will not be opposing this motion from the Leader of the House, but the point needs to be made this is an incompetent government mismanaging another suite of legislation. The opposition looks forward to the day when the Australian people get the opportunity to clean this government out and start again with a group of people who know what they are doing.

Question agreed to.