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

It was specifically ruled out. So it is absolute rubbish when we hear time and again from Mr Albanese and time and again from Minister Ludwig that this issue is well settled, that we have had 38 parliamentary inquiries into a carbon tax and that a carbon tax is something which has really been debated for 20 years. What absolute rot! That is their defence for the fact that they are seeking to rush into this place legislation that seeks to breach a solemn election commitment.

This government just do not get it. They are determined to force onto the Australian people something which the Australian people do not want. The Australian people made it clear at the ballot box. All bar one or perhaps two members of the House of Representatives were elected on a platform of there not being a carbon tax, so the Australian people made it clear at the ballot box at the last election that they do not want a carbon tax. The Australian people have made it clear in just about every opinion poll. We should not slavishly follow the polls. We should not be led by the polls. We are political leaders. It is our job to articulate a case and to prosecute it with the Australian public regardless of whether it enjoys majority support or not. But it is a very arrogant government that does not take heed at least of the pattern and trend in every single opinion poll in relation to the carbon tax. That is the height of arrogance by any government.

We recognise that the government, having broken their solemn commitment to the Australian public, succeeded only a matter of minutes ago in getting the carbon tax legislation through the House of Representatives. It is indeed a very dark day for Australia when a government that was formed on the back of a lie has completed its first challenge—getting this legislation through the House of Representatives. They are halfway there. They are halfway through the process of breaching their election commitment, so this is a very dark day. No doubt Labor members over in the other place will be celebrating today. They will be cheering. They will probably be walking out and doing doorstops saying what a terrific day this is for the environment and what a terrific day this is for the Australian economy, but we know from the great work done by Senator Cormann in the Senate Select Committee on the Scrutiny of New Taxes that this tax will produce economic pain and no environmental gain. Sadly, that legislation has passed through the House of Representatives. I guess there is one upside of that—that is, the name of each and every member who voted for that legislation, the name of each and every member who broke their solemn commitment to the Australian public, will be recorded for the voters to look at at the next election.

Even though the legislation has passed through that place, we still have a job to do in this chamber. Minister Ludwig says: 'What is the point of a debate? What is the point of discussing the legislation in this place? You on the other side have already decided what you are going to do.' Yes, that is right; we have already decided what we are going to do. We are going to oppose this legislation. But even where it may be a foregone conclusion this chamber still has a job to do to apply scrutiny, to air issues and to put the focus on government hypocrisy. Part of the role of this chamber is to hold the government of the day to account. Where a government has breached a commitment, we should take the appropriate time to focus on that, to highlight it and to ask again and again why the government felt the need to breach its election commitment. We make no apology for that. As an opposition in the Westminster system, we have the job of holding the government to account and we are doing that. More broadly, this chamber also has the role of providing scrutiny. This chamber also has a role as a house of review, regardless of the partisan positions on a particular issue. We are determined to do that, even if those on the other side of the chamber are not.

We know those on the other side of the chamber are not committed to even a modicum of scrutiny in this place because of the way that they treated the committee inquiry process in relation to the clean energy package. It is usual in this place, where we have significant legislation, for that legislation to be considered by the committees of the Senate. That is why they are there; that is why they were established. Historically, this chamber has not taken much notice—quite rightly—of what they do in the other place. If they want to have their own committee inquiries, terrific. If there are joint committee inquiries, great. But that does not dictate or determine what the committees of this Senate do. So it was extremely disappointing when this chamber voted against the proposal of senators on this side that we refer the carbon tax package legislation to each of the Senate committees to inquire into those areas for which they have jurisdiction.

That is pretty much what happened when the goods and services tax was being looked at. When the new tax system legislation was introduced, there were numerous Senate committees that met simultaneously and looked at different aspects of the goods and services tax legislation. That legislation was not nearly as far-reaching as the carbon tax package. So, if it was good enough for the new tax system legislation and if it was good enough for the GST legislation to go through that exhaustive inquiry process over a period of some five months, then how much more appropriate and necessary is it that the committees of the Senate examine the carbon tax legislation in this place. Instead we had what I refer to as the 'sham committee'—the committee which was racked and stacked. It was racked in that it had those carbon tax bills—19 of them—racked up to go into the one committee. It was stacked in terms of its membership; the conclusion was foregone. The committee met for two weeks was it, Senator Cormann?