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

I move the motion standing in my name on the Notice Paper:

That, in respect of the proceedings on the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (Abolition) Bill 2013 [No. 2], so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring:

(1) at the conclusion of the second reading debate, not including a Minister speaking in reply, or at 12 noon on Thursday 27 March 2014, whichever is the earlier, a Minister being called to sum up the second reading debate and then without delay the immediate question before the House being put, then any question or questions necessary to complete the second reading stage of the Bill to be put;

(2) if the second reading of the Bill has been agreed to and any message from the Governor-General recommending an appropriation for the Bill announced, the Bill then being taken as a whole during consideration in detail stage, if required, for a period not exceeding 60 minutes, at which time any Government amendments that have been circulated in respect of the Bill shall be treated as if they have been moved together with (a) one question being put on all the Government amendments, (b) one question being put on any amendments which have been moved by non-Government Members, and (c) any further questions necessary to complete the remaining stages of the Bill being put; and

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

This is a debate management motion designed to ensure that the Clean Energy Finance Corporation bill can be dealt with today. This bill has already been through the House of Representatives once and rejected by the Senate. The government is keen to pass it through the House of Representatives today so it can get back into the Senate at the beginning of the next sitting period, in seven weeks. While I assume the opposition will not be pleased with this motion, I think that the number of speakers who have listed themselves for the debate is indicative of the fact that the House just wants to get on with it. And in the interests of allowing the Leader of the Opposition to move his motion, I propose to curtail my remarks at that point.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition is opposed to this resolution after not just weeks but months of talking about a speech that had been given six months earlier and there being no legislation before the parliament. Now, the moment any legislation appears they are anxious to make sure that debate is shut down, and shut down immediately. The irony of all the comments about freedom of speech when one sees the way the Leader of the House actually manages the parliament is extraordinary. Given the outcome and what that will mean for later debate, I will also add that the reference the Leader of the House made to there not being a very large number of people who had listed themselves to speak is actually evidence as to why the gag was not appropriate and was not required in any way, shape or form. It is not necessary, should not occur but has become part of how the House is managed under this government.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to oppose this gag motion. This is a perfect example of why, when a bill has been rejected by the Senate, the appropriate course for this House is to look at the reasons the Senate has rejected it. What would be seen if you looked at it in any depth is that the Clean Energy Finance Corporation is actually working. On any rational assessment you would see—even if you believe that so-called direct action was the only way to go—that the Clean Energy Finance Corporation is an organisation that is worth keeping. What came out during the course of the debates in the Senate was that by investing $536 million the CEFC has leveraged more than $1½ billion worth of additional investment. In other words, $500 million of public money has generated $2 billion of investment in clean and renewable energy. These are jobs and projects that are happening now. We have the Macarthur Wind Farm, we have Taralga Wind Farm, and we have various other solar projects happening, many of which are in Western Australia. And we have wind farms being developed in Portland. There are jobs that hang on this investment continuing.

What is also clear from the Senate vote, and it is another reason we should not rush this through, is that regardless of how one thinks about the so-called carbon tax there is actually broad support across the political spectrum for keeping the CEFC. Conservative, Independent or other-party's senators actually voted at the end of last year to keep the CEFC. So the approach that should be taken is to go back to the drawing board and say, 'Perhaps we got it wrong on this. Perhaps this is actually an instance where co-investment of public money is driving the changes in the renewable energy sector that people have been calling on for a while now.'

The gag is completely inappropriate. It is part of a worrying pattern that is developing with this government. It seems in Tony Abbott's parliament you have the right to be a bigot but not the right to scrutinise legislation. Yesterday there were 10,000 regulations being debated, with a gag motion that meant we had 1.7 seconds per regulation to debate it. The gag motion yesterday meant that no members of the crossbench were able to contribute to the debate. I suspect it is going to be exactly the same today. If this gag motion is passed, and we finish the debate at 12 o'clock, we are talking about getting rid of billions of dollars worth of investment with less than a couple of hours to debate it.

If this government is committed to freedom of speech, and it is committed to transparency, and believes its policies will actually withstand some scrutiny, then they should not gag debate. They should allow a full debate on why the Clean Energy Finance Corporation is good for Western Australia, is good for Australia, is good for jobs, and is good for the planet.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion be agreed to.