Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I can satisfy the manager of government business. He is correct: we will be opposing this motion, and we will be opposing it for the same reason that we opposed the other motions to vary hours, the same reason that we opposed the motion for an extra week of Senate sitting, the same reason that we opposed the motion giving effect to the sham committee that Senator Cormann and Senator Birmingham were forced to participate in but where they did a magnificent job. It is for the same reason that we will be opposing this motion—and that is, to support any of those motions to vary hours, to have the Senate sit an extra week or to set up a sham committee would be to be complicit in the Australian Labor Party's breach of faith with the Australian people. That is what the government has asked us to do time and again—to be complicit in and to help facilitate the breaking of a solemn election commitment.

Let's go back to the last election. Each and every time that we debate procedural motions in this chamber in relation to the carbon tax, we have to go back to the last election campaign, when the Prime Minister put her hand on her heart and made that solemn declaration to the Australian people that 'there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead'. We have to come back to that each and every time, because it is as a result of the repudiation of that solemn election commitment that we find ourselves in this chamber today debating this motion.

It was not just any old commitment that the Prime Minister gave. It was a solemn commitment. It was a commitment without qualification. Often when a political leader makes a commitment they will bracket it with qualifications, depending on particular circumstances, depending on an election result, depending on the state of the budget at the time that they gain office. But there were no such qualifications in the case of the Prime Minister's carbon tax commitment, so we cannot allow the government to seek to make this chamber complicit in facilitating the breach of an election commitment.

I have to say, some of the most bizarre things I have heard since I have been in this place were the words from Mr Graham Perrett from the other place. Yesterday he said: 'I can't possibly countenance a change of Prime Minister. I can't possibly countenance that, because that would be a breach of faith with my constituents. I broke faith with them once before because I backed Kevin Rudd. Kevin Rudd was our leader. They voted for me firstly thinking Kevin Rudd would be Prime Minister, but then I breached faith with them by being part of the Australian Labor Party which changed the leader that the people had elected. So I can't breach faith with the public again. That is why, even though Prime Minister Gillard is the worst thing for the Australian Labor Party and even though the Australian public don't want her, I have to stand by her. Not doing so would be a breach of faith.'

That is pretty tortured logic, you must admit, Mr Deputy President. Talk about swallowing a camel and straining out a gnat, to quote the Bible. What is the greatest breach of commitment which we have seen in recent Australian political history? It is that of the Prime Minister, that 'there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead'. Yet Mr Perrett thinks, 'That's okay—that doesn't matter.' It is just a minor policy issue to him. 'No, no—the great matter before the Australian public at the moment is that I can't breach faith with my electorate because they thought Julia Gillard was going to become the Prime Minister.'

I have to explain to Mr Perrett and probably members of the Australian Labor Party more generally how our system of government works. Individuals in electorates do not vote for party leaders; they vote for the candidate in their local seat. That is what they do. The role of the party leader is to articulate the party platform, the party policy, and that is what Ms Gillard did. She did her job. She articulated the party policy, which was that there would be no carbon tax. So I think Mr Perrett really needs to understand how our system works and that it is in fact his leader who has breached faith with the Australian public. I hope those opposite and Mr Perrett find that explanation helpful, because they certainly need it.

I do agree with the Manager of Government Business that this is historic legislation. He stated that and he is right. This is historic legislation, because we have not seen legislation that will have such a detrimental effect on the Australian economy being introduced by an Australian government. The government readily concede that this legislation will increase the cost of living. They readily concede that electricity prices will go up by at least 10 per cent. They readily concede that businesses will take a hit. We might disagree with them about the magnitude of that hit, but even the government concede that this will make life harder for businesses, that business input costs will go up. Even the government concede that over the next several decades there will be the equivalent of a $1 trillion hit on the Australian economy, roughly equivalent to one year's economic output for Australia. Governments are meant to be in the business of making life easier for businesses. Governments are meant to be in the business of improving the standard of living and the quality of life of Australians. So this is indeed historic legislation where our government is consciously and deliberately seeking to harm businesses, seeking to harm households, seeking to damage the Australian economy. Minister Ludwig for once nailed it: this is historic legislation. I do differ with him when he says that we should not be having this procedural debate because the need for a carbon tax is well settled. He said that we have been having this debate for 20 years. I have heard Mr Albanese say that there have been 38 parliamentary inquiries into the carbon tax legislation—wrong, completely wrong. A carbon tax as a concrete proposition before the Australian people has only been there for a matter of months. There was not even a carbon tax as a concrete proposition before the Australian people at the last election. That is the whole point: the Prime Minister fibbed. There was no concrete proposition for a carbon tax before the Australian people at the last election.