Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I just want to correct Senator Leyonhjelm. The coalition totally supports this proposal. I am not sure where he got his information from. But I do not want to abuse standing orders like a couple of the previous speakers by speaking about things other than the motion before the chair, and the motion before the chair is that so much of standing orders be set aside as would prevent Senator Cormann from introducing a bill. The motion provides for debate on this particular subject.

Senator Milne, not that she addressed the motion terribly often, says it needs scrutiny. We went to an election on this promise. The people of Australia knew what we were on about, and you know the result of the last election, Senator Milne—an overwhelming majority for those who supported the abolition of the carbon tax, the abolition of the Climate Change Authority and the introduction of a direct action policy. So the people of Australia want that. I know the Greens are never terribly interested in what the people of Australia want, but the people of Australia made their views very clear.

It is not a new initiative that has been sprung upon the parliament. It is not anything that should take the parliament by surprise. It is something, as I say, that has been around in public debate for more than a year now. So the sooner we can get on and have the debate the better.

I am a bit unhappy that the Climate Change Authority—a useless body—is made up of people who have already made up their minds on the inquiry it is supposed to have. I heard one of the members talking on the radio today, saying, 'The government is not going to take any notice of what we decide, because we are going to say this.' Why bother with the inquiry if some members of the Climate Change Authority have already determined the issue before they have even got the terms of reference for the inquiry? But that is beside the point. We all know how this place works. The Climate Change Authority appears to be a necessary evil.

Getting back to the motion, it is important that this policy which was approved by the Australian public more than a year ago is debated in this chamber. Senator Xenophon is quite correct. As I understand the arrangements, we will debate this for as long as is necessary. Senator Milne again raises issues of insufficient debate when she was the one who, with her colleagues in the Labor Party, continually stopped debate in the last six years. I remember, as does everyone who was here in the Senate in those times, how the Greens supported the Labor Party and, in fact, in many cases moved the motion that we deal with seven or eight significant bills with not one word being debated on them. For Senator Milne to come here and say debating this issue for the rest of the evening tonight is not sufficient is the hypocrisy of the Greens political party. They do one thing when they have the power and curtail all debate on seven important bills without one word being spoken but then complain when an issue that has been around for so long and has been debated for so long is brought forward. It will be up to Senator Milne, I guess. We could have a 12-hour or 24-hour debate on it, if that is what she wants. To complain about that, in view of the Greens' attitude to these things in the past, is just hypocritical in the extreme.

I certainly support the motion. I would like to hear Senator Cormann move the bill and hear the debate so that we can all take part in it and understand, if we need to, what the government is proposing and then make a decision on it.