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

I move:

That, in relation to proceedings on the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 [No. 2], the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 [No. 2], the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013 [No. 2], the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 [No. 2], the True-up Shortfall Levy (General) (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 [No. 2], the True-up Shortfall Levy (Excise) (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 [No. 2], the Climate Change Authority (Abolition) Bill 2013 [No. 2], the Customs Tariff Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 [No. 2], the Excise Tariff Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 [No. 2], the Clean Energy (Income Tax Rates and Other Amendments) Bill 2013 [No. 2], and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (Abolition) Bill 2014, so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring:

(1) the resumption of debate on the second readings of the bills being called on together;

(2) at the conclusion of the second reading debate (a) one question being put on any amendments moved to motions for the second readings by opposition Members and then without delay, (b) any necessary questions being put on amendments moved by any other Member, and (c) one question being put on the second readings of the bills together;

(3) if the second readings of the bills have been agreed to, messages from the Governor-General recommending appropriations for any of the bills being announced together;

(4) the consideration in detail stages, if required, on the bills being taken together for a period not exceeding 20 minutes at which time any questions necessary to complete the detail stage being put;

(5) at the conclusion of the detail stage, one question being put on the third readings of the bills together; and

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

The government is determined to remove the carbon tax and we are very disappointed, as I think the Australian public are, that Labor insists, with their Green allies, that the carbon tax not only remain in place but actually increase on 1 July. There was an election last year. That election very clearly was a referendum on the carbon tax. As you pointed out, Madam Speaker, many times over the previous few years, when you were not the Speaker, the carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme claimed most of those proponents of it in high office and last year in September another one was defeated, this time the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, and before him Julia Gillard.

The government therefore feels that the parliament is well aware of the position of the government and the opposition. There has been a long, drawn-out debate on a matter that has already been decided by this House and has been rejected by the Senate, and we are insisting on our changes. Our reforms bill does not require a weeklong or longer debate as occurred the first time. So we will on Thursday debate the clean energy legislation and pass the clean energy legislation, and we have put this debate management motion to ensure that that can be done on Thursday.

I should inform members that in the interests of allowing some debate on not only this bill but also the Minerals Resource Rent Tax it would be very unlikely, in fact well-nigh impossible, that the House will rise at the usual time on Thursday.

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

I call the member for Blaxland.

Mark Butler (Port Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is Port Adelaide, Madam Speaker.

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

I am sorry but you are two peas in a pod.

Mark Butler (Port Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have been called much worse—not a bad bloke to be compared to, certainly better than most in this place, Madam Speaker, but it is a low bar.

Honourable members interjecting—

Well, it is called show business for the ugly for a very good reason. Of course, the member for Sturt thinks himself much better looking than the average.

It will not surprise the House that we do not support this gag, the first in a series of gags to shut down debate over some incredibly important pieces of legislation. We have heard 90 seconds of justification from the Leader of the House about the need to gag this debate on nine or 10 incredibly important pieces of legislation, on the basis that everyone apparently is well aware of the government's position. But the important thing for this House, for the Australian parliament, for the Australian community, is that there be a chance to deal with all of the very different and complex arguments around this package of bills from the parliament.

The last time this House dealt with these bills was more than six months ago, before Christmas 2013. In a very fast-moving area of policy there have been significant developments which it is important that members of the House on both sides of this debate get a chance to canvass, because these bills rest on a couple of myths that the Prime Minister particularly, but the government more broadly, seeks to perpetuate in the area of climate change policy. The first myth—and we hear this time and time again; we saw chief business adviser Maurice Newman write about this in The Australian only yesterday—is that the jury is out on climate change, that this area of science is not settled. I can point to numerous quotes from the Prime Minister where he has said that he does not accept that the science on this is settled. We heard this back in December when I had to sit in this chamber and listen to countless speeches from members of the government to say that the science on this matter is somehow not settled. Well, over summer we had that hotbed of left-wing conspiracy, NASA, come out and confirm that fully 97 per cent of climate scientists who regularly publish in this area agree with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that the climate is changing through global warming and it is doing that as a result of human activity, particularly the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use. That deserves further debate by this House.

What we have also heard, from the Prime Minister down in the coalition parties, and again just yesterday in the op-ed pages of The Australian newspaper from Maurice Newman, is that to the extent there might have been some global warming—not that that is conceded, but to the extent that there might have been some global warming—it has all stopped and actually, if anything, it might be getting cooler now since the late nineties. Maurice Newman yesterday went as far back as September 1996, saying: 'It's all stopped, nothing to worry about here. It's all getting cooler anyway.'

Again, that hotbed of left-wing conspiracy, NASA, over the course of summer confirmed that the 20 hottest years on record in the world are all since 1990. NASA confirmed that 13 of the 14 hottest years on record are all since 2000, that period when Maurice Newman, the Prime Minister and many others would have us believe that, to the extent we had cause for concern, it has all disappeared, it has all just seeped away into the sands, nothing to worry about. Well, this House needs to debate that and the degree to which this is actually something to worry about.

The other thing that has happened since the House last got a chance to debate this package of bills, and the area of climate change policy more broadly, is the very significant developments internationally. It is only a few weeks ago that the Prime Minister conducted a very extensive overseas trip clearly with one of the objectives being to take the temperature—forgive the pun—of other countries as we move into a range of international meetings this year: the leaders summit being called by Ban Ki-moon in September; the G20 meeting in November which will be chaired by Australia; leading into the UN conference in Paris next year. After luxuriating in the warm embrace of the Canadian Conservatives, who share the views of the Australian Prime Minister in this area, the Prime Minister just let it slip to some journalists in Australia that he was going to build a coalition—a coalition of the unwilling—who together would fight the Americans, the Chinese, the Europeans, anyone who thought that the international community should build towards strong climate action next year. He even went so far as to name the members of this coalition of the unwilling.

The New Zealand Prime Minister and the UK Prime Minister were named as members of this coalition who would join the warm embrace between the Canadian and Australian prime ministers to battle climate action wherever it might emerge, from wherever it might emerge. Unfortunately, the New Zealand Prime Minister—a political soul mate, apparently, of the Australian Prime Minister—was caught completely unawares and went out straight away to confirm New Zealand's commitment to take strong action on climate change and to be a responsible, constructive part of the international developments that will emerge over the next couple of years. The UK Tory Prime Minister, who has been a well-known leader in the area of climate change policy domestically and internationally, was also forced to dissociate himself from this coalition of the unwilling, nipped in the bud. I think the House of Representatives would like to debate this issue and the way in which the Australian Prime Minister has portrayed Australia's efforts in this area on the global stage.

The Prime Minister also said in Canada, it was reported, that Australia is just one of many nations walking away from emissions trading schemes—a falsehood that repeats a falsehood that Joe Hockey, the Treasurer, made on the projects program some months ago. It is important that the House of Representatives debate this point because it goes squarely to the question of whether Australia should be a part of these international negotiations. What we have seen over the last six months is particularly the US and China start to make moves, long overdue, to lead the process into Paris next year. China only last week started its seventh pilot emissions trading scheme, a scheme that will now cover more than 200 million people in China. Two weeks ago South Korea, our third largest export partner, imposed a tax on imported thermal coal of $20 a tonne as part of its introduction into an emissions trading scheme, which will be the second largest in emissions trading scheme in the world, starting on 1 January 2015. And, as people well now, the US President announced a few weeks ago the Clean Power Plan, which will impose emissions reduction conditions on existing power plants in America over the next little while—

Angus Taylor (Hume, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Direct action.

Mark Butler (Port Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Direct action, it's piped up—and the Prime Minister, with straight face, amazingly, tried to compare the plan to the dressed-up slush fund we see at the centre of their direct action policy. No carrot, no stick; all we see is a dressed-up slush fund.

There are many, many elements of this policy area that members on this side of the House at least are very keen to talk about because this is a fast-moving, complex area of policy. The member for Sturt is right: the government's position is well known about this; the opposition's position is well known about this. We take the view that, as soon as possible, Australia should move to an emissions trading scheme that places a legal cap on carbon pollution and then lets business work out the cheapest and most effective way to operate within that cap. That is the central argument we will be making in this place and in the other place as the government presents these repeal bills.

But the gag is completely out of order because these last six months have been an important six months for Australia's domestic policy considerations and for Australia's place in the world. For that reason, we oppose this gag motion from the member for Sturt.

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

The government has been caught out on global warming and so is seeking to gag debate. Since this issue was last debated in this parliament, the world has moved and the Australian population has moved. People understand that there is now an urgent need to tackle global warming. Because this government has been caught out without any effective policy that will work at all and because members of this government have been exposed as the science-denying shills for the fossil fuel sector that they are, they are now seeking to gag debate.

Since this set of bills was last brought before the parliament, we know that the world is moving towards exactly the kinds of trading schemes that are about to be repealed. Our Prime Minister came out and said, 'No, the world's moving the other way and no-one is taking them up,' but could not point to one country for which that is the case. In fact, within a matter of months we are going to be trading with Korea, which will have an emissions trading scheme. Provinces in China will have an emissions trading scheme. The President of the United States has urged action, including amongst his own states, to move towards putting a price on pollution. But this government has been caught out, so it is now in a rush to remove the only effective action, which in the last year drove down pollution in our energy sector by five per cent.

The government have also been caught out because now, for the first time, after people have had the opportunity to witness the government in action and test the veracity of their claims, the Australian public realises that, just as the government said one thing and did another on education, just as they said one thing and did another on health, and just as they said one thing and did another on pensions, they are saying one thing and doing another on climate. What they intend to do will not make electricity cheap again in this country. People know the reasons that power bills have gone up. This will not make electricity cheap again. What it will do is say to polluters, who at the moment are finally paying for some of the cost of their pollution, 'We don't mind; you can now go back to polluting for free.' That is the fundamental difference between the measures being repealed here and the government's sham of a policy. Under the arrangement that we have at the moment, polluters pay and we use some of that money to give compensation to households. Under the government's proposal it is the other way around: polluters get money and the households pay—the households of Australia will pay to give money to big polluters to keep on polluting. People are realising this. It is slowly dawning on the population that they were misled at the election, so the government are trying to ram through these bills and gag debate on the issue of our time.

People have also been realising, since this matter was last before this parliament, that the extreme weather events that we are witnessing in this country are influenced by global warming. People do not want the angry summers that we have seen. Australia has experienced the hottest day, the hottest month and the hottest year on record—we do not want that to become the new normal. We do not want to go into every summer wondering where the next bushfire will be and where the heatwave will strike and wondering if it will affect us or those close to us. People realise something is going on and they want action. That is why, this week—no coincidence that it is coming at the same time as the gag—polls have been published that show that, for the first time, more people want to keep the price on pollution than support the government's attitude. So the government, in the face of public opinion, is now rushing to repeal an infrastructure that is working.

Not only that—we heard a bit about the price on pollution—but the government is bundling up other bills in this motion. It is bundling up the repeal of the Climate Change Authority, which advises Australia on the state of the science and what action we should take. The government intends to repeal the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, which is actually working, returning money back to the government and driving down pollution. It is building wind farms and solar farms. The government did not say anything about that in this motion to suspend standing orders, but, of course, it just wants everything off the table so that it can deliver for big mining and the fossil fuel sector that put it in office. We should not support this gag.

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

I move:

That the question be now put.

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

The question is that the motion be put.

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

The question is that the original motion be agreed to.

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

I move:

That, in relation to proceedings on the Minerals Resource Rent Tax Repeal and Other Measures Bill 2013 [No. 2], so much of the standing 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 75 minutes after the commencement of the second reading debate, 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 to be put, then any question or questions necessary to complete the second reading stage of the Bill to be put;

(2) if the second reading has been agreed to the Bill then being taken as a whole during consideration in detail for a period not exceeding 20 minutes at which time any questions necessary to complete the remaining stages of the bill being put without further debate or delay; and

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

The opposition insists on calling the last motion, the debate management motion, the gag. I should explain to them that we now call it the 'debate management motion'—a term which I invented, if I dare take the credit for it. We are debating a debate management motion on the Minerals Resource Rent Tax Repeal and Other Measures Bill 2013 for the same reasons we had for voting on the carbon tax, which is that we have already passed these bills through the House of Representatives. They have been rejected by the Senate and the government is insisting on the abolition of the Minerals Resource Rent Tax. We want to have less tax; Labor wants more tax. Labor wants the carbon tax to rise; we want the carbon tax to be abolished. Therefore, on Thursday we will give the House of Representatives the opportunity to debate the Minerals Resource Rent Tax for a period of time. Knowing that Labor is unlikely to change its position—certainly the government will not—there will be no point in delaying the House for days of debate. We have already had that debate and therefore I recommend this debate management motion to the House.

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

Welcome to 'anything but the budget' week, because that is what is going on here. This is the government's attempt to talk about anything but the budget during the course of this week. This legislation could have been debated in previous weeks. Let's not forget the number of times this parliament has run out of legislation in previous times because the Leader of the House cannot manage a government program. Now they try to make sure that, for the course of this week, they have debate on as many different issues as possible for one reason—and one reason only—and that is to try to avoid their own backbench from having to make speeches defending the budget.

We will have, in a moment, another resolution that this will become relevant to—to have all the debate held on the one occasion, to make sure that speeches on cuts to lower income families and on cuts to pensioners are limited. The strategy that the government is employing here is cumulative, with the different resolutions that are in front of us. This one is to make sure that the mining tax is being debated at the exact same time that the cuts to family payments, cuts to the pension and increasing the pension age to 70 are being debated. In doing that the government is making sure that $13.4 billion worth of cuts will only have three hours of debate. This week, the government is going to be spending $63.8 million a minute in cuts. They are spending $63.8 million in cuts every minute for debate in this chamber.

Those opposite are adopting a very clear strategy, trying to make sure their backbenchers are not caught by their own constituents defending cuts to pensions and family payments. We just had a speech from the Leader of the House saying that they are about cutting taxes, when they have just brought in a budget where the first measure to go through the parliament was an increase in income tax. The same people opposite want to increase petrol tax. The same people opposite want to make sure, with their budget and these budget measures, that this parliament makes a direct attack on the cost of living of the exact same people they made commitments to.

The reason they are gagging debate with these resolutions is to try to protect their own back bench from the fact that this is a budget, and a government, of broken promises. Those opposite do not want to have to come into the chamber and make speeches defending the fact that, even though it was said there would be no cuts to education, there are cuts to education; that, even though it was said there would be no cuts to health, there are cuts to health; that, even though it was said there would be no changes to pensions, there are changes to pensions; and that, even though they promised there would be no new taxes, there are new taxes. So the strategy adopted by the government this week is to pile into one week—in the same parliament that in previous weeks has run out of legislation completely—as many different issues as possible, all of which have to reach their conclusion by Thursday, to try to ensure those members opposite can somehow go back to their electorates and disassociate themselves from this budget.

Those here should not believe for one minute they are going to be able to escape the reality: their constituents are going to know exactly what they have done in this chamber. Those opposite should not believe for one minute that the pensioners in their electorates will not know exactly what they have done. They may be able, through these motions, to avoid having to make speeches on these issues. They may, through these gag motions, avoid the scrutiny of putting up an argument. But they will not be able to avoid the scrutiny of coming in here and voting. During this week, even though the debate will have been gagged—even though the Leader of the House will have done his best to protect those behind him from having to defend, in speeches, the words of the budget—they will have to come in here and make a decision about whether or not they intend to vote to shift the pension age to 70, regardless of what they tell people in their electorates. They will have to vote to force people into a situation where, year on year, the real buying power of the pension becomes less and less.

I see one of the members opposite right now waving to people in the galleries, but the member for Reid will not be waving to his constituents about the way he will be voting this week. I would not be surprised if the member for Reid is one of the people who uses these debate management motions to avoid coming in here to make speeches defending these budget measures. He will avoid coming into this chamber to make speeches defending what is, by every single analysis, a budget of broken promises.

The purpose of the resolutions the Leader of the House has brought here today is absolutely transparent. When was the last time we had debate management motions on bill after bill, all introduced in this way? Their strategy is absolutely transparent. It did not need to be this way. I do have some sympathy for the back bench and the situation they have been put in. I understand that this is their strategy, because it is not only difficult for them to come in here and defend the budget measures because they break promises, it is not only difficult for them to come in here and make speeches to defend this budget because it is unfair, but it is also difficult to expect the back bench to come in and defend a budget that even their front bench could not get the details of right. Even their front bench, when interviewed, could not get the details of this right. So we end up with the poor public servants trying to work out what on earth this government wants to do. Is it the budget as it was agreed to by cabinet or is it the budget as it is claimed to be by the ministers in interviews, or even by the Prime Minister when he comes here to the despatch box?

We end up with billions of dollars—$13.4 billion worth—of cuts, all aimed squarely at hitting lower- and middle-income earners. They are all aimed squarely at hitting pensioners and making sure the real buying power of the pension goes down year after year, at every six-month increment. Those opposite come in here and claim that is not a cut because, even though it does not keep pace with buying power for the products that pensioners buy, they want to pretend that somehow they have kept their promises.

A motion like this in this chamber will mean, by definition, that people will lose the democratic right to stand up for the people who elected them. While those opposite might not be willing to come in and defend their constituents, on this side of the House we are here for the people we represent. We are in here on this side of the House saying we want to be able to stand in the chamber and defend the people this government wants to hurt. This government has come into this chamber wanting to hurt people in a range of ways, but it is particularly aiming at—targeting squarely—the people who can least afford it, make no mistake.

We are asked what was in the mining tax bills. It is as though the Leader of the House has never heard of the schoolkids bonus. It is as though the Leader of the House thinks the schoolkids bonus is not directly under attack in the issue we are debating right now. It is part of this bill. It is part of the legislation that is now being gagged. It is something that people in every electorate represented by those opposite and on this side of the House rely on for the expenses of looking after their kids and for the extra expenses that come at the beginning of a school year and halfway through. The people represented by those opposite might find they have no local member of parliament to stand up for them, but those on this side will stand up for the people we represent.

I say: we will be the ones standing up for the seats represented by those opposite us. Your constituents will not miss that fact. The pensioners in the electorates represented by those opposite will not miss the fact that, when it came to the crunch, people on this side of the House defended them and people on that side of the House did not. People on this side of the House were willing to come in to make speeches and defend people when they were being hurt; people on that side were willing to keep mindlessly inflicting pain, squarely aimed at those who could least afford it.

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

Before I call the honourable member for Melbourne, I would remind the House that the suspension motion relates to the Minerals Resource Rent Tax repeal, and it would be helpful for each speaker to at least mention that fact.

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

People have twigged that this government and its budget take the axe to the young, the old, the sick and the poor, and let Gina Rinehart and her like off the hook. Today this government is moving to deliver on its promise to its big business and fossil-fuel backers. It is easy to take the axe to people who cannot defend themselves. It takes courage to stand up to the wealthy and powerful, but a coward takes the axe to the people who cannot defend themselves. That is what this Prime Minister and this government have done, and people are increasingly realising it.

People know that today the government is coming in here and saying, 'We want people under 30 to spend six months of every year without any income at all'; 'We want people who have put in and worked all their lives to now work for an extra three years until they drop, and they won't have the same kind of pension to rely on that they thought they might have before'; and 'We are going to ask those who can least afford it to now pay to go to the doctor, even if it means that they might not go. That's alright, we don't mind deterring them, because we want them to pay'. At the same time as it is doing that, the government is coming in here and saying, 'We are now going to repeal the one measure that is on the books at the moment that has a chance of giving this country some revenue security.'

We hear the government say that there is a budget crisis. There is a crisis—a revenue crisis. At the moment, the amount of revenue that this government is raising is less than it was under its fabled predecessor, John Howard—so much so that if we started raising revenue as a proportion of GDP at the same level as we did under John Howard's government, we would have between an extra $10 billion and $30 billion a year. That means that you do not have to cut schools or hospitals. That means that you do not have to say to people, 'You now have to pay to go and see the doctor.' It means saying to young people, 'You do not have to spend six months of every year without any income at all.'

It is becoming increasingly clearer to the Australian population that we have a clear choice. You can have a budget and a set of legislation for the one per cent or you can have a budget for the 99 per cent. This government is doing what the people who paid for it to get elected wanted it to do, which is deliver for the one per cent. It is coming in here saying, 'We will repeal the mining tax'—something that that arch-Marxist former Treasury secretary, Ken Henry, thought was a good idea. Why do we not take the opportunity to secure the benefits of a once-in-a-generation mining boom to set this country up for a time when the rest of the world tells us to stop digging? That time may come sometime soon.

There is every risk that if we agree with this debate management motion and then subsequently move to repeal the bills, we are going to find ourselves waking up in 15 years time to find that this country is a hollowed out, uneducated quarry. If we really want to address the revenue crisis in this country, if we really did say, 'Maybe we can ask those wealthy multinational mining companies that send 83 per cent of their profits overseas to pay a little bit more instead of sick people having to pay more to go and see the doctor', we could find ourselves balancing this country's books and doing it in a much fairer way.

If we allow this motion to pass, we have lost the opportunity to fix and increase the mining tax. I hear those opposite shouting out, 'It doesn't raise any revenue!'. You know that is not true. It does raise revenue, but it does not raise anywhere near enough. There are some problems with the mining tax that we have pointed out many times: the rebate for state royalties, the rate of the tax, the problems that allow write-downs by the mining companies—all of those things were pointed out at the time by the Greens. We said at the time that we were worried that it would not raise enough revenue. If you, members of the government, think it is not raising enough revenue, let us fix it and increase it. The only reason for repealing the mining tax is delivering for the likes of Gina Rinehart. This government has a clear choice: do you want to deliver for the likes of Gina Rinehart, or do you want to deliver for the people? The Australian Greens know squarely where we stand, and we will be opposing this gag.

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

I move:

That the question be now put.

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

The question is that the question be now put.

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

The question is that the original suspension motion be agreed to.

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

I move:

That, in relation to proceedings on the Trade Support Loans Bill 2014 and the Trade Support Loans (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2014, so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring:

(1) the resumption of debate on the second readings of the bills being called on together;

(2) at the conclusion of the second reading debate, not including a Minister speaking in reply, or 45 minutes after the resumption of the second reading debate, whichever is the earlier, a Minister being called to sum up the second reading debate and then without delay (a) one question being put on any amendments moved to motions for the second readings by opposition Members, (b) any necessary questions being put on amendments moved by any other Member, and (c) one question being put on the second readings of the bills together;

(3) if the second readings of the bills have been agreed to, a message from the Governor-General recommending an appropriation for the Trade Support Loans Bill 2014 being announced;

(4) the consideration in detail stages, if required, on the bills being taken together for a period not exceeding 20 minutes at which time any questions necessary to complete the detail stage being put;

(5) at the conclusion of the detail stage, one question being put on the third readings of the bills together; and

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

The Trade Support Loans Bill 2014 is one of the signature items in the government's budget. We are very proud of it and we are grateful to give the opportunity to young people—apprentices and trainees—to be able to borrow from the taxpayer in order to be able to complete their apprenticeship or their traineeship in the same way that students at university are able to borrow from the taxpayer to get a higher education qualification. The debate has been continuing in the House of Representatives for some time. There are a list of speakers that have already spoken. There are a few speakers left. The government regards this as an important measure to pass this week through the House of Representatives. In order to ensure that that is the case we are moving this debate management motion which will allow another 45 minutes of debate on the Trade Support Loans Bill 2014 but will also ensure that the government can continue to move its program through the House of Representatives in the efficient, methodical and calm manner in which we have been doing since the election.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Vocational Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a very, very strange way to show you are very proud of a piece of legislation—to gag it! It is an extraordinary position to take. The Leader of the House says to us that the bills before us are such a centrepiece of the government's budget that they do not want it discussed in this House. Extraordinary! We are not opposed to the bill. We have some very good points that we would like to put to the minister for him to consider in the implementation of these bills. We have several more speakers. The Leader of the House might like to know that the members who are going to speak on this side of the House are actually raising the voice of their constituents. Their constituents have contacted them, asking them to put on the record some of the issues that they would like the minister to look at in implementing the bill. But, just as importantly, there are 18 more speakers on the government side—outrageous!

I think the one thing we have learnt from this is that the Leader of the House is not doing the numbers on the backbench. I think that is pretty clear, because they have got nothing positive in the budget to talk about. These poor backbenchers on the government side have got to do their newsletters and send them out to their electorates. They need to find something good to say about the budget and have something they can promote and say, 'I was in the parliament talking about what a great initiative this was.' They have lost their one opportunity. The trade support loans bills might have given them the chance to make an on-the-record comment— 'I am a champion for skills and trades'—and the opportunity to put a little video up on their Facebook page: 'Here's me in the parliament defending apprentices, talking about a great government initiative out of the budget.' It might have given them the chance to get on their Twitter feed and say: 'Have a look at me in the parliament, putting the voice of the people, my constituents, on the record about this great initiative out of the budget.' They have been gagged—outrageous! The Leader of the House clearly has no leadership ambitions. Quite clearly, the one thing we have got from this is that he has no leadership ambitions. The backbench will be very cranky, Leader of the House. You have denied them the opportunity to get their nice little video up on Facebook and to get the good story into their newsletters about their opportunity to talk on these bills before the House.

As I indicated in my speech on the second reading—and sadly many of my colleagues both in the opposition and the government have been denied the opportunity to talk on these bills—there are some issues of concern that are being raised by apprentices, their employers, local businesses, and some things they would like the government to consider in the implementation of the bill. For that reason, I moved a second reading amendment, to give the opportunity for members of the parliament to put on the record, for the minister's consideration, some of those matters that have been raised with them. Sadly, for all those local constituents who have taken the opportunity to talk to their local members, from both sides of parliament, about some of the implications of this bill that they want considered, their members of parliament have been gagged by this government.

I will give the House a few examples from my colleagues of the sorts of comments that their constituents wanted them, as their elected representative—with the right, one would think, to speak in this parliament—to put on the record. The member for Fowler, for example, has in his seat some of the expanding residential areas of south-west Sydney, where there is very high youth unemployment. For many of the young people in his area, the Tools For Your Trade program that is being abolished in order to establish this Trade Support Loans scheme was a really important support to young apprentices. He made the point to me—and would have liked to have done it in the House—that, as the father of two sons, Nicholas and Jonathan,who went on and completed apprenticeships, he has a very good understanding of the challenges that that provides and the importance of government support.

The member for Canberra wanted to record the views of a constituent who emailed her about her son, who is an apprentice carpenter. He is in his third year of his apprenticeship. He has already committed to a number of financial burdens. For example, he has a work vehicle and is currently paying off a $7,000 loan for that. He used the Tools For Your Trade program to get air compressors, a generator, an industrial heavy-duty troweller, nail guns, ladders, laser levels and so forth. He used the money to pay for his fuel, as he travels about 1,200 kilometres per week. When he is away from home, it assists with rental costs.

They are very good examples of the sorts of purposes for which the Tools For Your Trade money was useful. The point I am making is that, while it is fine to provide additional support such as the trade support loans, it should never be at the cost of those direct grants being paid to apprentices. It is not good enough to say that a debt is a reasonable replacement for income support as was provided through the Tools For Your Trade program. The member for Canberra's parent of an apprentice is very cranky.

The member for Charlton had an example brought to his attention of a first-year apprentice hairdresser who works in Bonnells Bay. She started in November last year. She studies at a great local TAFE, Tighes Hill campus in Newcastle. As you could well appreciate, she has had to buy a lot of equipment: clippers, scissors, thinners, uniforms and books for TAFE. Those expenses add up. She said that good, high-quality kit can cost anything between $300 and $1,000. She received the first $800 reimbursement under the Tools For Your Trade program but is not going to get the future payments that she quite reasonably expected that she was signing up for. She is particularly angry about this. She makes the point that she is trying to save up for a car, is struggling to get on her feet financially and she has now had, in effect, nearly $3,700 ripped out of her pocket. Other examples have been brought to the member's attention, particularly when he visited NovaSkill, a local education training provider in the Hunter.

The member for Kingsford Smith has been contacted by a gentleman called Paul Byrne, from Amdel Services Pty Ltd. He is an electrical contractor from Maroubra who employs a number of apprentices. He wanted to train some of his electricians to be upskilled ready for the NBN rollout. He is very angry that the Tools For Your Trade scheme has been abolished and he said: 'This will result in our company not being able to claim the finalising grant. Considering this year I will have outlaid over 40 grand in training fees to Intercom and TAFE New South Wales, this could be the straw that breaks the camel's back.' He also feels that the abolishment of that scheme has been a very unfair outcome of the proposal to introduce the trade support loans.

We had an opportunity to ask some questions at the second reading. I wanted the opportunity for my colleagues to pursue the examples they had so the minister could hear the detail of them and consider the proposals in the second reading amendment—in particular: what is going to happen with young apprentices under the age of 18; and what supports and assurances will the government put in place when apprentices undertake a debt as opposed to receive a grant? There were examples of those sorts of circumstances to be raised in the House. This is an important initiative for young people, but it must be done in a way that supports and protects those young apprentices.

It is quite legitimate that all members of this House who had these issues raised with them should be able to raise them in this place. It is not appropriate to gag this debate. I think it is particularly poor that not only do I have to get up and defend my own colleagues and their right to participate in the debate around this issue but I also have to stand here to protect the rights of the backbench of the government to get up and talk about the issues that they would like to raise—to get a good little clip of themselves saying something nice about the government. It does not happen often in this place. Let's face it: the poor government members are denied so many opportunities to talk about good initiatives. With the best intention in the world, we were keen to offer them that opportunity and the terrible Manager of Government Business has just ripped it away from them. It is outrageous.

Mr Pyne interjecting—

I will acknowledge the interjection by the Manager of Government Business. It is cruel and heartless.

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

I move:

That the question be now put.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the question be now put.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (13:27): The question now is that the motion moved by Mr Pyne be agreed to.