Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I stand by my interpretation that it is effectively a deferral motion. I just reiterate the Labor government’s position on this matter. We think the need for action against climate change is urgent. We have done for some time. That is why we went to the last election with a policy that committed us to action on climate change. It is also the reason why the Greens went to the last election with a policy for action on climate change. And it is also the reason why the coalition, the then government, went to the election seeking urgent action on climate change. John Howard argued that the Liberal Party had a commitment to urgent action on climate change and that they would introduce an emissions trading scheme. That is the policy that the Liberal Party and the coalition took to the election: a commitment to the Australian people that they would support urgent action on climate change.

For two years now this government has pursued an open process of trying to debate in the Australian community the need for action on climate change and to shape an appropriate policy response. Senator Wong and others have put a great deal of work into that. We are now in a position where a few weeks ago we entered into a good faith negotiation with the Liberal Party to get broad parliamentary support for the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, which would give business and the general community certainty about the future of an ETS. Mr President, as you know, we negotiated that agreement in good faith with the Liberal Party, and last week the Leader of the Liberal Party said we had a deal. It was taken to the party room of the Liberal Party and they said we had a deal. Now it seems that the Liberal Party refuse to honour that deal because not only did we have a deal on the passage of the legislation as amended but we had a deal that the Liberal Party would assist us in gaining passage of that legislation.

The Liberal Party agreed that the Senate would sit until we passed that legislation and that, if it was not completed on Friday, we would come back today and sit until it was completed. They agreed to this because of their concerns about voting for a guillotine. They committed to the fact that today we would sit until we completed the bill. That was the commitment; that was the deal; that was the promise.

It comes as no surprise to anyone that the Liberals have abandoned that commitment. They have reneged on that commitment. By moving the amendment and supporting the Greens motion, they give effect to a further betrayal of the arrangements which they entered into and which they publicly agreed to. I suppose it is no surprise to anyone that the Liberal Party would engage in such behaviour. Given the way they have treated each other over the last week or two, a betrayal of the Labor Party is probably no surprise at all. The way they have treated each other is one of the worst examples of betrayal and treachery we have seen in Australian politics for many a year.

The key point is that this is all about delaying a vote until the party room meets tomorrow. This is all about the Liberal Party delaying the vote until such time as those who are in rebellion against the current leader have an opportunity to change the policy. They have made it clear that they want to change the policy and change the leader. They will not accept the authority of any leader who supports action on climate change. The right of the party are in absolute revolt. They refuse to accept the policy they took to the election, they refuse to accept the policy of the party room and they refuse to accept the authority of any leader who does not reject the need for action on climate change.

So we are in the situation today where we are continuing with this pretence. The Liberal Party pretends that we are continuing to have a serious debate on the legislation while the senators led by Senator Minchin seek to undermine the leadership in order to avoid honouring the deal to support our ETS legislation. It is not just about seeking to defer the legislation. Senator Minchin and other conservative senators in this place have argued that a delay is necessary, but you only have to analyse their speeches and what they said in the second reading debate to understand their view. I think Senator Minchin described it as ‘an abomination’. So on one hand Senator Minchin says we need delay to look at the detail and on the other he says it is an abomination. That seems to me to be a fairly strong statement for someone who says he just wants to look at the detail. If you run through those speeches by Liberal senators, you will find that a vast majority of them actually argued they do not believe in climate change—they do not believe in human contribution to climate change. So it is not about the legislation; it is about the victory of the climate change deniers inside the Liberal Party.

The climate change deniers inside the Liberal Party have insisted that climate change does not exist, that action against climate change is not necessary and that they will not accept the authority of any leader who supports action against climate change. What we have today is a group of senators committed not only to making sure there is no action against climate change but to ensuring there is never a Liberal Party leader who is not opposed to effective action on climate change. They will not accept the authority of a leader who is committed to climate change action.

Mr Hockey is now faced with a Faustian bargain. He can have the leadership provided the deniers get their way. He can have the leadership provided he is prepared to sell his soul to Senator Minchin and the climate change deniers, because there is no other basis on which they will allow someone to lead the Liberal Party. They will not accept the vote of the party room, they will tear down the leaders and they will tear the whole party apart rather than accept action on climate change.

So Mr Hockey is faced with this Faustian bargain: to become leader he will have to toe their line, sell his soul to the climate change deniers and make the bargain that says, ‘You can be leader, but not of any party that is committed to climate change action.’ We are in the situation where not only have they reneged on their election promises—