Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I know why Senator Cameron is interjecting. It is because day after day of these committee hearings Senator Cameron championed the legislation, saying how good it was and how it had to get through the parliament. He has now been totally humiliated by the Prime Minister saying, ‘The legislation is that bad we are going to junk it and, what is more, we are going to delay the scheme’s introduction by a further 12 months.’

So we have another suite of legislation—11 bills in all—and this government, who were brought into power saying that they would use the Senate responsibly and properly and allow things to be analysed, are now saying, ‘Let’s have a very quick turnaround on this legislation. We do not want an extensive Senate inquiry.’ Methinks I know why they do not want that extensive Senate inquiry. It is because they fear that the Combet model may well go the way of the Wong model of legislation—that is, end up in the rubbish bin because it is so fatally flawed.

Let us make no mistake about this. When Professor Garnaut himself appeared before one of the Senate committees to talk about the legislation, do you know what he had to admit? It was that he has not had time to look at the legislation. If someone like Professor Garnaut, who was allegedly the architect of the flawed Wong model, did not have enough time, surely it is acceptable to say for the Combet model now that we might want some people to actually look at it and consider it?

Senator Wong went on this great little excursion talking about who was, who was not and who might be expressing some concerns about the science in relation to climate change. That is completely and utterly irrelevant to the reason her legislation was junked by her own Prime Minister. She can talk about everybody else but the issue here this morning is that her legislation has been junked, Mr Combet’s legislation is now before us and the Senate has a right to look at that in some considerable detail. To ask for a deferral of some two months for further and proper consideration should cause no problems for any senator who is interested in the role of the Senate being used to its full extent.

When is Copenhagen? It is later this year—November or December. Even if the Senate were to start debating this in August-September, there would be sufficient time prior to Copenhagen. In a very rare convergence of my views and those of Greenpeace, Greenpeace have said what a ludicrous proposition it is to put forward your targets in domestic legislation, set them down in concrete, and then to go overseas and try to negotiate and bargain. Everybody knows your starting and finishing position because you have already legislated it domestically. You has shown all your cards and you have lost all your negotiating powers. Even Greenpeace acknowledges that. Anybody would know that. And you would have thought the person allegedly most skilled in matters of foreign affairs, the Prime Minister himself, Mr Rudd, would have known it as well. Yet the government continue with this nonsense mantra that somehow the legislation has to be passed because of Copenhagen.

I say to the government: you have now broken your election promise in relation to the introduction of this emissions trading scheme. You have broken it because you must have known—or you now know; reality has mugged you—that you cannot introduce it with a commencement date in 2010. That is exactly what we said during the last election campaign, and the high and mighty Mr Rudd, ‘Mr Morality’ himself, said, ‘This is a high moral issue—in fact, the most important moral issue this country faces—and the scheme has to come in in 2010.’ All of a sudden, the morals are out the back door, along with good manners and everything else with this government, and we can now apparently delay this issue of great morality for another 12 months or more.

If it is not to start for an extra 12 months or more, that puts them into the timetable that John Howard and the coalition said would be the responsible timetable during the last election campaign. Labor have now adopted it. Rather than admitting they got it wrong—they got their model wrong, they got their legislation wrong—Senator Wong comes in here and tries to obfuscate. The simple facts are these: Labor tried to rush a scheme. They now know they can no longer rush it. In their rush, they put forward a flawed piece of legislation. The Prime Minister himself has recognised it. Labor have junked it. They have called in Mr Combet to prop up this ailing minister. He has put forward legislation, only tabled today. I have not seen it as yet. There are 11 separate pieces of legislation.

We are in budget week. I think most senators next week will be fully employed preparing for Senate estimates, which then go for a fortnight, taking us well into the month of June. When on earth would a proper inquiry be undertaken for these 11 bills, reporting by 15 June? It is treating the Senate with contempt, and we as a Senate have a duty and an obligation to the people of Australia to ensure that this legislation is properly examined. The reason they want to rush it is not because of Copenhagen but that they are so concerned that proper examination would mean that they might have to junk the Combet model, just as they had to junk the Wong model. We believe in proper Senate scrutiny of this legislation and I fully support the excellent amendment moved by my friend and colleague Senator Parry.