Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Hansard source

You are absolutely right. I am not going to get the chance to go to the committee. Thank you very much, Senator Hanson-Young. It should go to a committee. I should be able to raise these points at a committee. I should be able to call witnesses. I should be able, with you, to question experts on whether it is true that Australia emits less than 1.4 per cent of world carbon emissions. I know what the experts will say, and it would be good if you were on the committee because you would understand from the experts that Australia only emits less than 1.4 per cent of world carbon emissions. You would also learn that stopping five per cent of that—we are aiming for five per cent—is not going to make one iota of difference to the changing climate of the world, and you know that. I would love to be in a committee with you, Senator Hanson-Young, where we could get the experts and we could get that all in. But I am not going to be given the chance. The Greens have a total of 10 members of parliament. Yet on this sole committee that is being set up to look at this legislation, the Greens will have two representatives: one from the lower house and one from the Senate. How many will the Liberal and National parties have on this committee—bearing in mind that the Liberal and National parties have more members and senators than any other party in this parliament? We have about 150 Liberal and National members of parliament and on this committee we will have three members from the House of Representatives—nomi­nated by the opposition whip—and two senators. So out of 150 parliamentarians, the Liberal and National parties will have five people on the committee. Roughly speaking, that is one per 30 members of parliament. By contrast, the Greens will have two members on the committee to represent their 10 members of parliament. How fair is that? What Australian would think that was a fair go? What Australian would think this proposal will make our democracy work?

This is a rump party, the Greens political party, that has very little support around the nation, yet this party will get two members on this committee out of its 10 members of parliament. Our parties, which represent more than 50 per cent of the Australian public, are going to get five members. When you add the Labor Party's representation to the Greens' representation on the committee, the Labor Party will get another four from the House of Representatives and two senators. There will be a total of six from the Labor Party—a non-aligned member, I see—and two from the Greens. So it is eight to five. The party that represents most Austra­lians, that has the biggest political represent­ation in this chamber and in the whole parliament, will get a total of five people on the committee.

This new committee, this gerrymander, is not going to follow the Senate practice of allowing participating members. Why is that not happening, Senator Hanson-Young? You and your Labor mates put this deal together. Why are you going against the normal Senate practice of allowing every senator to take part in committee investigations and not allowing participating members? The answer is that the Labor Party and the Greens do not want scrutiny of these bills. That is why this motion sets out that the committee will have a restricted amount of time to deal with 18 separate bills.

This committee will have a very substantial majority from the Labor-Greens alliance. Yet the opposition represents more Australians in this parliament both in numbers and in the percentage of votes at the last election. And if opinion polls are to be believed around the country, the view of Liberal and National parties is reflected in a substantial majority of Australians. Accord­ing to the opinion polls, most Australians do not want this tax, yet the Greens and the Labor Party are pursuing this undemocratic process of restricting debate on the bills. Senator Hanson-Young said, 'Save it for the debate on the bills when that comes.' Senator Hanson-Young, my allocation of time to address each one of these bills is one minute. What will I be able to say in one minute? That is my share of the time that you and your Labor colleagues have imposed on this parliament. What sort of questioning can I raise in my one minute dealing with these bills?

In all the long years I have been in this parliament, I have never seen anything as undemocratic as this particular motion and the way it intends to deal with this legisla­tion, allowing me and all my colleagues one minute per bill. Senator Hanson-Young says, 'Why don't you save this for the debate.' Senator Hanson-Young, I am a fast talker but in one minute I will not be able to question the minister, I will not be able to question anyone on your side on some of your stupidity in the case of these carbon tax bills and I will not be able to ask you: what difference will five per cent of less than 1.4 per cent make to the changing climate of the world? I would like you to answer that, Senator Hanson-Young. You will get plenty of time to talk on it, but I will get one minute per bill. How democratic is that? It is an affront to all Australians that a bill which is going to impose a major tax on the cost of living of every Australian will be rammed through this parliament by an unholy alliance, actually a holy alliance, I suspect, of the Greens and the Labor Party.

I have had to listen to the pious principles that have been espoused by the Greens Senate leader, Senator Brown, over all these years, that: 'We never guillotine anything. We may not agree with you but we allow full debate on everything.' What has happened to that principle? That has gone out the door. It just proves the point I always make about the Greens: they are full of hypocrisy. They are so hypocritical in their policies and in their approach to this issue. 'Yes, we should have a full debate.' Senator Hanson-Young inter­jected, saying, 'Save this for the debate on the bill,' yet I am going to get one minute. How democratic is that?

People have voted for the Greens in the past thinking that they were a party of the environment—what a joke that is!—and a party of some fairness and democracy. What will people in the electorate now say about a party which is going to allow every senator only one minute to debate each one of these 18 bills which will impose on every Australian perhaps the largest cost-of-living increase that has ever been imposed by this parliament?

The motion for the setting up of this committee is undemocratic. It is contrary to all the principles of the Senate. It is contrary to all the principles that every senator has always cherished. In this chamber, we have a proper committee process, we look into bills and we elucidate the mistakes that we all know will be there. That process has stood the test of time, and it is being thrown aside by the Greens political party and the Labor Party in their alliance to curtail debate on these most important bills.

I urge the Senate to reject this message from the House of Representatives. I urge the Senate to go back to its normal procedure of setting up a Senate committee, which would have every senator as a participating member, so that we can fully investigate all of these 18 different bills. (Time expired)