Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Pursuant to contingent notice, at the request of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Minchin, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Parry moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion relating to the order of government business this week.

Question put.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That a motion relating to the order of government business for this week may be moved immediately and have precedence over all other business until determined.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That, commencing from the time business is called on following discovery of formal motions today, the orders of the day for the following bills, deemed urgent by the government:

Rural Adjustment Amendment Bill 2009

Health Workforce Australia Bill 2009

Tax Laws Amendment (2009 Budget Measures No. 1) Bill 2009

National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Amendment Bill 2009

Car Dealership Financing Guarantee Appropriation Bill 2009

Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Pension Reform and Other 2009 Budget Measures) Bill 2009

The bills listed in the motion are bills that the government have indicated to us are urgent. If we consider the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme bills before these other motions, there could be a risk that these bills are not considered. It is our view that the public need the assurance that these budget measures bills will be debated properly prior to the consideration of any other legislation. These are bills that commence either at the beginning of this financial year or some time shortly thereafter, as opposed to the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme suite of legislation, which does not commence until one year after that, in 2010.

What we are doing is consistent with the position that we put to the chamber last week and the condition that we have maintained with government during meetings with leaders and whips—in particular, indicating that we would support the government in facilitating this program. We flagged with the government last week that we thought that these bills should be considered first and, once we discovered that they were not, we decided that we needed to step in and assist the process of bringing on these bills. This could have been managed a lot better by the government. We have been arguing strongly for a more consistent approach to legislative arrangements in this chamber and, in particular, the introduction of bills that need to be considered before others.

We want to ensure that the government’s appropriation bills are passed, and there can be no criticism in this chamber for those bills not seeing the light of day during this sitting week. In the last week prior to the commencement of the next financial year it would be irresponsible of the government and certainly irresponsible of us not to facilitate these bills being passed this week, as they need to start on 1 July. I think the government should realise that this is the last sitting week and, to deal with this legislation, it has to be done in this fashion.

I will go through some of the bills. The Rural Adjustment Amendment Bill 2009 amends the Rural Adjustment Act 1992 to allow for the appointment of members to the National Rural Advisory Council for three terms. Government has informed the opposition that this bill is required urgently, yet it is still not appearing on the list ahead of the CPRS. This bill is to allow for the reappointment of four members whose terms will recommence on 1 July this year. The current members’ terms expire in eight days time, so this sitting week is the last opportunity for the Senate to consider this bill for the reappointments to occur. This bill is urgent and the coalition wishes to support the government in its consideration today.

Then we have the Health Workforce Australia Bill 2009. This establishes Australia’s Health Workforce as an independent statutory body to implement the COAG health workforce outcomes as agreed in November last year. The powers of the statutory body relate to funding, coordinating of clinical training, supporting clinical training supervision, health workforce research and planning, simulation training and providing advice to health ministers. Given this measure was agreed to by COAG back in November of last year, consideration of this bill should also be a matter of priority and should not be put off into the future.

Then we move to the Tax Laws Amendment (2009 Measures No. 1) Bill 2009. This bill limits the exemption of income earned in overseas employment. The bill also reduces concessional contribution caps. The bill is also a revenue bill, a thing that the government has declared an urgent need for. We have been asked to pass this bill, so again we want this bill considered prior to other less urgent, less important and less significant legislation. Also, the Senate Economics Legislation Committee will today report on this matter.

The National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Amendment Bill 2009 is another bill that the government wants urgently considered. This bill enhances the framework for auditing energy under the energy reporting program. It brings auditing requirements into line with the requirements of the act. The government has declared to the opposition that passage is required in these sittings so that subordinate legislation can be dealt with following royal assent, including regulations for auditor registration requirements. We are told that delaying passage would limit availability of auditors to audit under energy reporting programs. We support this bill being considered urgently.

The Car Dealership Financing Guarantee Appropriation Bill 2009 is another bill that the government has told us needs to be passed by 30 June. Again, this is the last sitting week and this bill has not been listed before less urgent bills. The scheme cannot commence until the bill is passed, and appropriations need to be made to guarantee securities issued by a special purpose vehicle established to raise funds to support local dealerships. The four major banks will not buy OzCar, the special purpose vehicle, until the guarantee is enacted. Again, this demonstrates that this is an urgent bill that needs to be considered this week. The government has told us this needs to be in place by 30 June this year. The Economics Legislation Committee will report on this bill tomorrow in the Senate.

The Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Pension Reform and Other 2009 Budget Measures) Bill 2009 will exempt the value of payments made under the Skills for Sustainability for Australian Apprenticeships and the Tools for Your Trade programs from treatment as assessable income for taxation, social security and veterans affairs purposes. The government has declared that this bill is also urgent and that royal assent in seven days time would be required to enable the family tax benefit indexation and benchmarking changes to be implemented by 30 June this year. The Community Affairs Legislation Committee will be reporting on this bill on 23 June, tomorrow.

Then we have the appropriation bills. These bills and their urgency go without saying. These are the supply bills for government expenditure and they are urgent by their very nature. They must be passed and finished with by 30 June. We certainly need to consider them in these sittings.

We have clearly established the urgency of the bills that I have just listed, which are mentioned in the motion. These bills should be considered prior to the introduction of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme suite of bills, the debate on which we know, by its very nature, will be a long discussion. Many senators in this chamber wish to speak about that significant legislation, which does not commence until 2010. We have been on the record indicating that the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme bills do not commence for a long time and that we have other far more urgent issues, which we have listed and put before the Senate chamber for consideration.

We will no doubt get to the CPRS bills as the week moves forward and once we have dealt with these urgent matters. But we know that we cannot afford for these urgent bills not to be passed. I am surprised that the government have left these bills until the last possible minute, running the huge risk that these bills will not even come before the Senate before the end of this regular sitting week, the last sitting week before the commencement of the new financial year. So we have had to step into the breach and assist the government. We have flagged this continuously and we have assisted the government with bringing on their urgent legislation.

At the leaders and whips meeting, we were given a list of urgent and highly desirable bills. We have now facilitated the list of the urgent and highly desirable bills that the government would like passed in an order that we consider the public of Australia would demand. We need to consider the urgent budget measures bills, we have put this motion to the Senate and I urge senators to support the coalition in having these bills considered before we move on to other legislation.

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

What an extraordinary contribution! What an absolutely extraordinary, disingenuous, misleading and courage-lacking contribution. The senator failed to address what the senators for the National Party—

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

Madam Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order: the Leader of the Government in the Senate has just made some outrageous imputations against the mover of this motion. I would ask that you demand that he withdraw those imputations.

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald, there is no point of order. I remind Senator Evans, though, about the nature of the debate.

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

Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President. What we have seen today is the Liberal Party seeking to facilitate what it has stated publicly over recent weeks. I have to be fair—Senator Joyce has been blatant in his public comments that the coalition will do anything they can to prevent them having to have a debate about the CPRS, anything in their power to stop the debate coming on. That is what this is about. This is about a filibuster and an attempt to prevent debate.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order: I feel I have been misrepresented. I said ‘I’ will do anything.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That’s not a point of order. That’s just another filibuster.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take the interjection, Senator Marshall. What Senator Evans said was that the Liberal Party, or the National Party, said that—

The Acting Deputy President:

Senator Joyce, you cannot take an interjection during a point of order.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have said that I will do anything to stop this vote coming on. What Senator Evans said I said is something completely—

The Acting Deputy President:

Senator Joyce, there is no point of order. This is a debating point.

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

Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President. You can tell the coalition are sensitive—in a minute there have been two points of order trying to deny what is obvious to everyone. This is not about assisting the government. This is not about assisting the process of the Senate. It is a cowardly act designed to avoid having to debate a policy position, to debate a bill, on which they are all over the place, on which they are deeply divided. The Liberal Party are deeply divided, such that they cannot agree on any way forward in dealing with the CPRS, and the National Party are in open revolt against the Liberal Party’s position that they ought to support the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

Senator Parry’s contribution was extraordinary in that, as I say, he did not at all address that issue. What this government has said to the opposition and the minor parties is that we have a list of priority bills which we seek to have dealt with in this week. What we will also do, as we tried to last week, is to sit the extra hours—as the Senate always has—to pass the bills that the government determines are priorities.

We have the extraordinary position on this occasion that the opposition have decided that they will decide what the government’s order of business is! Now, we know that you did not like losing and we know that you have had trouble adapting to opposition, but it is extraordinary that you come into this place and say: ‘Well, we are really still the government. We will decide which bills come on and in which order we debate them, because really we are trying to help the government.’ What an absolute disgrace! What an absolute misrepresentation of the position.

It is unsurprising to anyone that we suddenly find the CPRS is at the back of the list. Why? Because, as Senator Joyce has said publicly, they will do anything to stop these bills being debated. They do not want these bills debated. They do not have the courage of their convictions to come in and adopt a position on the bills. They are too scared and they are too wracked by division to be able to come into this chamber and have a united position. So their answer is: ‘Let’s hope it all goes away. Let’s do what we can so we don’t have to deal with it. It’s all too hard. We are scared. We are running scared of adopting a position on the major issue in Australian public policy today.’

Their position is to come into this chamber and move mealy-mouthed motions that seek to put it off, to defer and to filibuster. Quite frankly, I am embarrassed for Senator Parry, that he did not have the courage to address what this is all about. We know what it is about—be honest! As I say, at least Senator Joyce has been honest. He said he will do whatever he can to prevent it happening.

The government’s position is that we retain the right to set the order of business. I encourage the Independents and Greens to think about this. I refer them to standing order 65:

Government business on Notice Paper

Ministers may arrange the order of their notices of motion and orders of the day on the Notice Paper as they think fit.

It has always been accepted in this Senate that the government sets the orders of the day. The government sets the order of business for dealing with government business and legislation. This is an unprecedented attempt to take over and prevent the government from proceeding with its legislative agenda.

The opposition want to set the legislative agenda based on what suits them, based on their cowardice about dealing with the CPRS. That is not acceptable and I urge the Independents and the Greens to think very carefully about supporting this motion. If there is a view in the Senate that the CPRS is not to be debated, as some are arguing, let us have that debate. But do not pretend in this sly and underhand way that this is a procedural motion to do that. This motion seeks to ensure that the CPRS does not come on until late in the week and the opposition can then argue, ‘It’s all too late to deal with’.

We have the situation today, on a day when the opposition say they are holding the Treasurer to account and calling on the Prime Minister and Treasurer to resign, that not only are they seeking to delay the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme but they are moving a matter of public importance about education. Why is there suddenly an interest in moving a motion about education on the day that they are calling on the Prime Minister and the Treasurer to resign? Because they are only interested in one thing: in not having to front up to the major public policy debate this country is having and not having to front up to take a decision on the CPRS.

Senators like Senator Cash have said quite clearly to Malcolm Turnbull, the Leader of the Opposition, that they are not prepared to back him. And his answer to that is not to have the courage of his convictions to adopt the policy that even the Howard government advocated but to actually say: ‘We are too scared of the internal divisions and we are too scared of what the National Party will do, so we will look to put off decision day. We will look to filibuster.’ This is an extraordinary proposition, that the opposition set the order of business.

You might notice also that the question of the alcopops bill has disappeared. Again, it is something they do not want to have to deal with. It was listed on the Notice Paper for this week but suddenly we find that no, that has gone too. They want to determine what they will debate this week because they are too scared of the key debates. They do not want to debate the alcopops legislation because they are scared of adopting a position. They do not want to vote on the CPRS because they are so internally wracked with division that they want to put it off. It is all too hard.

If they had the courage of their convictions and moved a procedural motion to that effect I would have been more impressed. Quite frankly, this is an underhand, disingenuous attempt to get them what they want, which is the capacity to filibuster the sittings of the Senate to a point where they do not have to deal with this bill this week. There is no other rationale for the decision. We asked for extra hours and we were not able to obtain those, bar on Tuesday last week. We will again seek extra hours to deal with all priority bills this week. The government is prepared to sit every night late, Friday night and beyond, in order to deal with its legislative program. It is the government’s legislative program, which empowers the government to move the government program, to have the order of business set by the government and to have the Senate deal with the legislation in the order set by the government.

In an unprecedented move the opposition seek to take on that power themselves in order to facilitate their weakness and incapability to deal properly with a major piece of legislation. It is so lacking in subtlety. It is just an extraordinary piece of politics. I urge the Senate to reject this motion. If we are going to have a debate about the CPRS, then let us have a debate about the CPRS. If you are going to have a view adopted about when we deal with the CPRS, let the Senate decide that. Do not let this underhand, sneaky method of trying to delay the bills succeed. This is important legislation. Everyone knows it has been listed for this fortnight and everyone is ready for the debate. Let us have that debate.

We will deal with the bills that the government has outlined as priorities. We will sit until they are completed and we urge the rest of the Senate to adopt the common practice of sitting until those bills are dealt with. They include the CPRS. It is not for the opposition to tell us what bills the government may or may not proceed with. The government has the right and the precedent to set the orders of the day. This is just a weak attempt to avoid being held accountable for a public policy position. We have had green papers. We have had white papers. We have had endless debate. Let us be honest about this. Debate the CPRS rather than trying to defer it and talk it out.

As I said, this is a most disingenuous attempt to deal with the weakness of the coalition. I urge the Senate to reject that approach, to debate the CPRS as called on by the government and as has been expected, and also to deal with the rest of the legislation according to the order provided by the government. We are perfectly willing to sit as long as is needed to deal with all the bills, including the CPRS, listed as priority by the government. There can be no other reason for this motion than the attempt by the opposition to filibuster to the point where they do not have to deal with this bill this week. That is unacceptable and I urge the Senate to reject it.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Greens will not be supporting this motion. This is the beginning of a filibuster by the opposition to avoid the debate about the climate change legislation, which is listed by the government as priority for this week. We have had differences with the government about the lack of sitting times for the Senate and about the bill itself, but from the very first minute of the sitting this week the opposition has engaged in a calculated filibuster to stop the climate change bills being determined by the Senate. That is dismissal of an obligation to this nation to deal with these serious pieces of legislation. Instead of the future of the nation, its environment, its economy, its employment prospects and its lifestyle, which are all critically threatened by the onrush of climate change, the opposition is transfixed by a second-hand utility and a lost or fake email.

I do not dismiss those matters, but the opposition has not got the priorities right here. This is a parliament whose bounden duty is to deal with issues confronting the interests of this nation and the voters who put us here, and here we have game playing and a rapidly drawn up motion that is not even grammatically correct and which lists no defined order—it has a list of bills, but it does not say in what order they should be presented—as it tries to take over government business and set aside rule 65 of the standing orders. I say to my fellow crossbenchers, Family First Senator Fielding and Senator Xenophon: consider this very carefully. If you are going to join with the opposition in taking over the order in which government legislation comes before this place, take the responsibility which goes with it. It is a very dangerous course of action. The Senate has the power to do it by numbers, but think it out very carefully before you undertake that course of action, because you are then responsible for the whole legislative program and the passage of legislation in here. If you want to take that responsibility on, think very carefully about it and wear the consequences.

I submit it is a foolish course of action and has not been thought out. It is all the more foolish because there is an ulterior motive in what the opposition is proposing to the Senate. That simply should be seen for what it is. By the way, the political content of this motion is notable. Pieces of legislation listed as urgent by the government are not included. For example, the Migration Amendment (Abolishing Detention Debt) Bill 2009, which changes the immigration legislation, is not here, because the opposition does not agree with it. The Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Political Donations and Other Measures) Bill 2009, which tries to undo the rorting system brought in by the Howard government, is not on the list. The alcopops bill is not on the list.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It’s not on the paper.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Parry complains that they are not on the urgent list. No, that is set aside by this motion from the opposition. What the government thinks is urgent and not urgent no longer pertains. If the opposition has its way with this piece of legislation, it is responsible for what is urgent and what is not, and I am pointing out some pieces of legislation that it has left off the list for consideration altogether because they are not politically convenient to the opposition.

The opposition is on very dangerous ground here. Where it is safe is in believing this is going to delay debate this week and make it more difficult to get the government’s legislation through. Every minute we spend on this ill-thought-out effort by the opposition to take over the running of government business in this place is a minute lost on determining the legislation—

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

Why don’t you sit down, then? You’re talking about every minute—here’s another.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I say to you on the opposition benches: you brought this on; if you are now moving to silence other people in the place, get up and move it if that is part B of this debate.

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

That’s your argument. You’re having a bad time, Bob.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If the interjector on my right cannot substantiate the interjection he would be better to abide by another standing order, which he is breaking at the moment. I put to my fellow crossbenchers that they should not be supporting this proposal by the opposition unless they fully understand the very serious ramifications of doing so.

I say this to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Evans: the Greens have made it clear from the outset that we would not be obstructing the government in presenting climate change legislation and getting it through this parliament. We disagree—and we will come to that matter later this week—with the proposal put forward by the government because it is weak, unsatisfactory and will not do the job of confronting and reversing climate change. Nevertheless, we are in the business of the government’s legislation—which the opposition basically agrees with—being dealt with by the Senate. That is the proper course of action, and this motion deserves to be lost.

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

What a surprise! The Greens are rolling over to the Labor Party yet again. They are, after all, the left-wing faction of the Labor Party, and we should not be surprised at that. But I could not help but smile at Senator Brown’s comment about a calculated filibuster. I well remember the Regional Forest Agreements Act back in 2001, I think it was, where Senator Brown strung out the debate on that particular bill in a filibuster for over 28 hours. He just spoke for 20 minutes at a time in the Committee of the Whole and used some little-known rules of the Senate to be able to speak once for the allotted time—15 minutes, I think—and then speak for another 15 minutes immediately after it. Talk about filibuster! The Greens created it. The Greens discovered it. It is a Greens tactic. It just shows how hypocritical the Greens are.

One day, when we have time—I do not want to waste the time of the Senate now—we will remind the Greens of their hypocrisy in opposing the Traveston Crossing dam and then giving preferences to the Labor Party, who are committed to building the Traveston Crossing dam. I will never let you forget that, Senator Brown. You got in your canoe, went down the Mary River and told all the people in the Mary River Valley that you were concerned about the lungfish. And what happened? He pledged undying loyalty to the people of the Mary Valley and the lungfish, and what did he do? He arranged for his party in Queensland to give preferences to the Labor Party, who were committed to building the Traveston Crossing dam. So do not talk about filibusters and hypocrisy; just have a look in the mirror, Senator Brown.

His hypocrisy is compounded through his lecturing us that every minute this debate goes on is a minute less for us to talk about the CPRS, and then he continues to talk for another five minutes after that, so delaying it. What hypocrisy! How could you live with yourself, Senator Brown, with that sort of rubbish? I know you had a bad week and Senator Abetz got under your skin about that outrageous money-raising effort that you went to. I know you had a bad effort on Thursday afternoon. You thought that would be hugely popular, and then you saw the opinion polls, which showed that people thought you had done nothing more than a stunt. What hypocrisy!

But I did not want to take up the time of the Senate. I have been distracted by Senator Brown and the hypocrisy of the Greens political party. I did want to address, though, the substance of Senator Parry’s motion. First of all, I note the failed minister Senator Wong, who has had the running of this bill taken from her by someone who was originally a parliamentary secretary and was promoted to actually look after the CPRS Bill in the light of Senator Wong’s inability to deal with it at all. When Mr Combet and Mr Rudd rolled Senator Wong on this bill, they determined to put the commencement of this bill off for one more year. So what is the great urgency when the government and Mr Combet have rolled Senator Wong and made sure the introduction does not start until a year from now? What is this great urgency? I would love someone to tell me about that. There is no urgency for that particular bill, but we will deal with it.

I want to bring back to senators the memory—he is still alive but no longer with us in the Senate—of that distinguished senator Dr John Herron, who in a very famous contribution to the Senate a decade or so ago pointed out the health impacts on senators of dealing with legislation late at night and sitting extended hours. The Senate at that time agreed with then-Senator Herron that sitting for long, extended hours was simply not good for the health not only of senators but also of staff who are required to look after this place. The government have had a whole year to get a lot of bills through, but they have just fiddled around. They could not run the chamber; they could not run the government business. They have told us time and time again that the bills that Senator Parry has listed are indeed urgent and have to be passed by 30 June.

We accept the government’s position that those bills are important. Just from a quick look at the bills Senator Parry has mentioned, the Car Dealership Financing Guarantee Appropriation Bill seems very important to the government and to a certain dealership in Ipswich. I know all senators—the government particularly—would want to make sure that we have time to discuss that and do not end up at five o’clock on Saturday morning trying to deal with that particularly important bill. I can imagine, of course, that the government might like to deal with it at five o’clock next Saturday morning so that no-one would get too inquisitive about what this particular bill is about, who might benefit from it and which senior members of government might have friends who might benefit from the bill. So I can understand why the government may well want to deal with that at 5 am in the hope that the journalists and the public will not be around to report that particular bill. But it is important—we have been told that by the government.

I just want to briefly mention the appropriation bills, which are the supply bills, as we all know here. They have to be passed by 30 June. They should be dealt with first. I am not fully in the loop about how long each bill would take, but I would guess that we would be able to knock most of those bills off in a day or perhaps a day and a half and get them out of the way.

There are important bills like the Rural Adjustment Amendment Bill. This government has shown time and time again that it has absolutely no interest in rural and regional Australia. The fact that it brought in this bill, which does demonstrate at least some interest, is good, and the bill should be dealt with. But, in another instance of the government’s back-flipping around, it has now decided that perhaps rural adjustment and the appointment of the committee are not quite so important. It is an important committee. It needs to be dealt with, as Senator Parry pointed out. I think the current appointments to that committee run out in seven days. That bill has to be passed by 30 June. It would not take long to debate. So why don’t we do that before we move on to the CPRS Bill, a bill which the government has said is so non-urgent that it will not be introduced until 12 months time? What is the urgency of dealing with that when we could deal with the rural adjustment bill and get that advisory committee to continue with the work it does to try and assist rural and regional Australia?

The Health Workforce Australia Bill, about an independent statutory body, has been around the ridges since November last year. You will recall, Madam Acting Deputy President, that in the Senate at the start of this year we sat around twiddling our thumbs while the government sought to find some business that the Senate could deal with. Here was a bill that was determined by the Council of Australian Governments in November last year, almost eight months ago, and that legislation now has to be passed within the next 10 days or so. That should be dealt with. It will not take long—I can guarantee that. It is a bill that I think we could easily deal with.

A lot of my constituents have expressed to me concern about uncertainty on the taxation of overseas employment. They are not necessarily opposing the Tax Laws Amendment (2009 Budget Measures No. 1) Bill but they are concerned about the uncertainty that the bill creates. That bill has to be dealt with very, very quickly. It has to be dealt with before the end of this June. Madam Acting Deputy President, you will know, as we all know and as every Australian knows, that the government has put this nation into hock to the extent of some $300 billion plus, and it certainly needs every bit of revenue that it can take, so one would think it would be more keen than others to get that tax law amendment bill dealt with at the earliest possible time.

These issues need to be dealt with first. It is no good us being here voting on the CPRS at seven o’clock on Thursday night, or on Friday night or Saturday morning, and then having to deal with these other issues following that. These are important bills, and they deserve more than being squeezed in when people’s health is at risk, when the health of attendants in this chamber is at risk, because the government has not been able to manage the program. That is what Senator Parry and the opposition are trying to do—and it is not, for Senator Brown’s information, the opposition that are doing it. If the business of the Senate is rearranged, it will be rearranged by the Senate, not by the opposition. It is important that we give the government the opportunity to deal with these bills that we have been told time and time again are particularly important.

Finally, I urge upon senators the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Pension Reform and Other 2009 Budget Measures) Bill, which deals, amongst other things, with the plight and the welfare of our veterans. I always have the view that anything that assists our veterans needs to be done in the time limit. To do that, the bill has to be passed by 30 June, by the end of this financial year, and it should be dealt with early so that there is no prospect that it could slip over into another year and cause benefits that would be going to veterans not to be passed.

I do not want to hold up the Senate. I am conscious that I could speak for another seven or eight minutes. Indeed, there are issues about which I have to try and convince the crossbench senators. We just ignore the Greens—they are just, as I started off saying, the left-wing element of the Labor Party. I would not even try to convince them, but I would try to convince Family First and Senator Xenophon that this is a sensible measure dealing with some very important bills, bills that the government has been telling the independent senators for weeks now have to be passed: ‘They’re urgent bills; they’ve got to be passed.’ Why not do that today, perhaps running into a bit of tomorrow, and get them out of the way so that we have plenty of opportunity to address the CPRS Bill?

I emphasise again that the CPRS Bill does not come into play under the government’s plan for another 12 months, so tell me the urgency about that. Mr Combet certainly understood the distress and the danger that that bill would cause to our economy and made sure that it was left for another year so that it could be properly thought through, better drafted and better designed. Mr Combet had his way. It is not going to start until the middle of next year, so what is the hurry in these next two or three days? I urge the Senate to support Senator Parry’s motion.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is quite obvious that we are heading towards the debate on the emissions trading scheme—one of a range of possible carbon pollution reduction schemes but one that is completely ridiculous for our nation at this point in time. That debate will be one of the biggest debates that has ever been held in this chamber. That goes without saying. You would have to have been living under a rock to think that that debate is not going to be one of our most hard-fought debates. So it is prudent to clear the decks of other issues prior to the winter break and to go out and find the other bills that we can get through so as not to unduly put at risk things that do not need to be collateral damage in this debate.

You could start with the Rural Adjustment Amendment Bill 2009. This bill is to allow the National Rural Advisory Council to be appointed for a third term. It is a small, non-controversial matter. We could get through it. It is easy. We could get that one out of the way straight away. If we do not, then that body will be basically left without the capacity to continue to operate. Then what do we do? We should not be affecting those people, because they have an extremely important job to do. They are out there looking after the crisis in rural Australia, especially the people who are still affected by the drought, and trying to restructure things. It is something that we could be dealing with right now, in an expedient way, and clearing the decks of it. There is a tax laws amendment bill which concerns, so I am led to believe, overseas employment. That bill should be dealt with now, as should the Health Workforce Australia Bill 2009.

We all know that, as soon as this ETS debate starts, it is going to be hard-fought and bitter and go on for days and days. We have to allow the Australian people every possible chance to understand the full ramifications of what this ETS means. The Labor Party is putting forward the idea that the only form of carbon pollution reduction scheme is their ETS. Well, there is actually a multiplicity of forms of carbon pollution reduction scheme, of which their emissions trading scheme is a very peculiar and distinct subset.

If you look at that Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, the debate we are going to have is going to be about the capacity of Australia to reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, in the air we breathe, by 0.0000000798. This is obviously a ridiculous place for Australia to take itself in the middle of a global economic recession. That is the reason there is going to be so much fervour in the fight over this, because we are trying to make sure that the costs that will be passed on to people are not passed on for the sake of a mere gesture—a political gesture with no effect on the global climate but with an absolutely dramatic and detrimental effect on the economy of regional Australia, on farmers, on coalminers and on all the people who are going to be dragged into this gesture-like piece of politics that will destroy regional communities and take away the capacity of people to work with confidence in the future of regional Australia. What else would you expect but an immense debate on that? However, we seem to be using this as a gun to people’s heads. We are going to delay these other bills that could be so expediently dealt with and got out of the way, and for what? For a tactic, by which we make these other people, such as those involved in rural adjustment, collateral damage.

Let us be honest: it really does not matter whether we start this debate on the ETS now or start it tomorrow; it will go all week. And it should go all week, because it is a ridiculous process for Australia to be putting forward an emissions trading scheme prior to Copenhagen and in the form that is currently before us. It would not have mattered whether we started this debate today or last Thursday. This debate will go on for as long as it takes to convince the Australian people of the ramifications of what will happen to them if they proceed with this current emissions trading scheme—what will happen to their lives and what will happen to the economics of this nation—and how completely and utterly pointless it is. Even if you have a genuine concern about the environment, it still is completely and utterly pointless.

The trap that is obviously being laid is the argument that this is a filibuster. Whatever tactics it takes to save the Australian people from this process is a genuine and a worthwhile tactic, and if that has to be to debate this for as long as possible, if the outcome protects the weakest in our economy from the effects of what is a peculiar, detrimental and environmentally pointless piece of legislation, then so be it.

It is always interesting when people throw out the word ‘filibuster’ as if it were a graver sin than murder. The first time it was actually brought into play was by Cato the Younger in 60 BC, and the whole point of it was to stop Julius Caesar making himself the tyrant of Rome. Well, that was a pretty good tactic. He failed in the end, but it was a pretty good tactic to try and bring about a just outcome. And if this debate is part of a process to get to a just outcome—and what you are trying to get in the end is justice for the weakest in our economy—then whatever tactic is available will not be precluded because of some sort of sensibility about what is appropriate in this chamber. We are allowed to debate this issue for as long as needed to give everybody a chance to bring up the issue.

We should debate it, because every day the momentum behind this issue and the belief of the Australian people is changing. More and more, they see that this is going to come and rest on their heads. It is going to rest on their heads in the way they pay their power bills. It is going to rest on their heads as some obscure, bureaucratic, Kafkaesque nightmare that will descend on those in rural places, as people start looking at how many cows you have and how much they are belching and deciding what sort of carbon tax you are going to have to pay after 2013 or 2015—when they will undoubtedly bring it in. The government always seem to be looking at the back end of the cow but not looking at the front end and understanding exactly what the true ramifications of this scheme will be.

I have been looking at some of the modelling that has been put forward. The National Australia Bank talks about the price of carbon ranging between $10 and $100. If a beast produces 70 kilograms of methane and if under the Kyoto protocol—which we have been signed up to or dragged into or made a political point about or a ploy for—we have an uplift factor of 21 on 70 kilograms; that is 1,470 kilograms of carbon. Let’s be even; let’s call it a tonne and a half of carbon per beast per year. Let’s make it halfway between the National Australia Bank’s modelling of $10 and $100 for a credit—that is, $50—multiply that by 1½, so that gives $75 per beast per year. If we look at the ramifications, we will not have a cattle industry. It will cease to exist in this nation, and for what? It is for this number—a 0.0000000798 reduction in carbon. It is absolutely manic.

BlueScope Steel has said that 25,000 people will lose their jobs. That is just one company. For what? For a 0.0000000798 reduction in carbon. This is how peculiar this whole scheme is. The only people at the end of the day who will be barracking for this scheme are people driving their 7 series BMWs in their Giorgio Armani suits who work as traders in the middle of town. They will be collecting the money from the pain that is inflicted on everybody else, because somebody somewhere has to pay. It will always be the weakest members in our economy that end up paying. We talk about the noble gesture of changing the climate when, in the authenticity of that statement, you have not got a skerrick of a hope of changing the climate from a domestic position.

This is a forerunner to the sort of debate that we are going to have. In the meantime, we can get out of our system the Rural Adjustment Amendment Bill, the Health Workforce Australia Bill, the tax law amendment bill—all these issues can be dealt with expediently. We can clear the decks of those issues and then move on to the debate in proper. I hear the Greens talking about the morals of filibustering. From a party which created the stunt last week of trying to draft off the people in the Caroona—

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order about a senator reflecting on the motives of other senators and ask him to withdraw.

Russell Trood (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think Senator Joyce was probably making a debating point. There is no point of order.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I said, last week we had the theatrics—call it what you may—of the way the Greens acted first of all by using the people of the farming areas of Caroona as a pawn in a motion that they decided to bring into this chamber where they did not lobby anybody. There was a notice of motion where they did not lobby the Labor Party, they did not lobby the Independents, they did not lobby the Liberal Party and they did not lobby the National Party. They just brought the motion in and created absolute division that day, and brought hurt and pain to people who are already under immense pressure in the Liverpool Plains. They brought Mr Windsor into the gallery so they had a beautiful shot for Four Corners but forget about the reality of actually trying to do something. Forget about actually getting off your seat in the chamber and walking round this place to actually—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order to do with relevance. There is a question before the chair and it would surprise me if anybody could link the contribution Senator Joyce is now making to the question before the chair as being in any way relevant. I would ask you to bring him to talk to the question before the chair or to sit down.

The Acting Deputy President:

Generally, there is allowed to be a measure of latitude in these debates, but I would encourage Senator Joyce to return to the question that is before the chair.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What I am doing here is refuting the allegation that was made by the Greens, calling to mind the consistency and the construct of their argument, and actually laying before the chamber how when you really flesh out the practice of the Greens and the authenticity of their position it falls to pieces. We have quite obviously seen that the Greens last week pulled off a stunt that hurt the people of Caroona on the coal issue. Then we have the issue the other night with Senator Hanson-Young, which could have been put away so quickly, but of course Senator Brown had to stand up and turn it into a complete theatrical sideshow—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order to do with relevance. Again, I put it quite clearly that there is a question before the chair. Senator Joyce is now wandering all over the place using examples of debates that may have been had or are going to be had. He really should either address the question before the chair or end this stunt and sit down.

The Acting Deputy President:

As I said a moment ago, the general position in the chamber is that we allow senators a measure of latitude when they are addressing any question before the chamber, but I would encourage Senator Joyce to be relevant to the matter at hand.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to see the government stand up and explain to the whole chamber why we could not have a more judicious and expedient flow of legislation that takes into account the reality of exactly where we are in this legislative program. What we want to see from the government is why we cannot rearrange business in such a form as to clear the decks of those things that could be expediently dealt with and not unnecessarily cause collateral damage because collateral damage itself is a form of stunt. It is a form of a tactic of hurting people who do not need to be hurt for the purpose of putting pressure on people. I do not think that is necessary. It has been foreshadowed for months, almost years now, that this is going to be one of the major debates that this chamber ever has.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You’re not fronting up to it. You’re being a coward. Have the courage of your convictions. Be a man. Have the debate.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take the interjection, Senator Wong. There are lots of things I have been called, but I have never been accused of being cowardly or running away from debates. And this is from a person who does not even have the spine to stand up to Mr Combet!

Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I wish to draw attention to the behaviour of Senator Wong. She is normally very well behaved but on this occasion she is lowering the standards of this place. Her behaviour—her yelling across the chamber and accusing the Leader of the National Party of being a coward—is disorderly and I would ask you, Mr Acting Deputy President, to bring her to rule.

The Acting Deputy President:

Senator Wong, that kind of behaviour is indeed disorderly. I ask you to restrain yourself.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have always believed that the definition of cowardly is ‘to run away from a fight’ and I do not intend to do that. I am going to fight this every step of the way.

I do note that there are people within the Labor Party who have differing views but who never have the capacity to stand up to their own party organisation for fear of being expelled. That fear is overwhelming and it is the key thing that differentiates that side from this side. If we have a belief, we have the liberty to express that belief. They do not have a belief; they are told what to believe. So it is the absolute height of hypocrisy to get a claim of cowardliness coming from people who never, ever show any ticker whatsoever to really stand up when it counts. This is especially true given the debacle of Mr Combet coming in and standing over the top of Senator Wong. Senator Wong did not have the capacity to stand up to him and stand her ground.

I am looking forward to the debate. I will partake in it in every way, shape and form. I will do everything I possibly can to protect the Australian people from an absolutely ridiculous scheme that will send the Australian economy into a tailspin in the middle of a recession. How can we possibly have equilibrium based modelling that is premised on the fact of full employment when we are in the middle of a recession, for goodness sake? How on earth did we go forward with a policy premised on the capacity of green jobs to miraculously appear, like manna from heaven in Nimbin, for people in the coalmining areas of Mackay as they venture south like some new form of migrating bird to find Penny Wong’s marvellous green jobs. We cannot even find one. It was an absolute farce the other day in the Senate Economics Legislation Committee when it was put to us that the idea of green jobs is to have a landscape festooned with windmills which will employ the industrious people of Australia. This is the ludicrous type of policy agenda that is coming forward.

There was a book written by Charles Mackay called Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. This ETS is going to be like one of those.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order, again, of relevance. There is a question before the chair. Senator Joyce is now seeking to debate the very issue that this resolution seeks to avoid on his behalf. He should not be having it both ways. He should either have the courage to oppose this resolution and allow us to get on with the debate or support this resolution which is trying to avoid that debate. He should not be able to have it both ways. He should stop this stunt and sit down.

The Acting Deputy President:

You are verging on debating the point of order now, Senator Marshall, but I would suggest to Senator Joyce that he focuses on the issue.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will close with a question for those who might have made the allegation that what we are doing is cowardly. Do you have the ticker to bring forward these items and allow us to expedite them as quickly as we possibly can? Will you allow us to get them out of the way so that we can accommodate your desire to entertain the debate? I bet you will not. I lay the challenge to you: if you have some authority and ticker left over there, bring these things on and let us get them out of the way. We can get them out of the way this afternoon. Then, if you are fair dinkum, we can start your debate. If you do not want to do that then who is pulling the chain?

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Family First will vote on this motion with good prudence and not politics; good governance and not games. They are important principles here. I do not take the rearrangement of government business lightly. But it is an absolute farce to think that, because the government have not been able to order the business, we might be sitting again late in the evening in order to make very important decisions. We have fewer sitting days this year and all they want us to do now is sit longer at the last minute. They have made the claim that the bills listed have a deadline of 30 June. It is prudent to treat these bills first in order to deal with them. Then we can focus on the CPRS legislation. That is prudence, not politics. Politics would be whacking the CPRS legislation upfront to try to get it through quickly so you can get to other, more urgent, issues. They have to play fair here. They should not play games. It is their fault that the chamber is left in this position of rearranging their business. It is the government’s job to order the business in this chamber but this week they have failed. It is not about games; it is about them getting on with the issue of organising business in a way that is conducive to the process of good decision making. Doing it late at night is just ridiculous. They have said that those pieces of legislation listed in the opposition motion need to be passed by 30 June. Let us get on with it and have the debate on those. Then let us get to the CPRS legislation and have the debate on that. It is prudence, not politics, to do it. It is good governance, not game playing.

I do not take this motion lightly and I do not see it as game-playing and I do not see it as politics. I see it as prudent and good governance. I urge senators to think about their vote and to think about it in those terms and vote for this motion. Let us get these pieces of legislation that have a deadline of 30 June through. We can get through those debates then get to the CPRS legislation, rather than the other way around. It is not stalling; it is about prudence. It is not about politics; it is about prudence. It is not about games; it is good governance. I urge all senators to look at this. This is the first time I have supported—I believe; I may be corrected—a rearranging of business in this way. Yes, it is the government’s job to do it, but they have failed to order the business in a constructive way and a way conducive to good decision making. I urge senators to support this motion because it is prudent. It is politics not to support it; it is game-playing not to support it, and it is good governance to support it. I urge senators to support this motion.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on a motion which is essentially about ensuring that the opposition do not get to debate the CPRS; that is what it is about. Senator Fielding, I will take up your challenge to consider good governance and I make this point to you: the government have been clear for months now that we would be debating the CPRS in the June sittings. You may wish to make that assertion because you do not support the bill or because you agree with other aspects of what the opposition say. But it is incorrect to say that the government is simply whacking it through. This is major legislation that the government has been upfront about in saying it would be debated in the June sittings. It has been listed for the June sittings and is the first item for debate in this week of the June sittings. So there is no element of surprise.

I think it is important to remind the chamber of the facts of how we got to this point. Let us just remember where we have been. This has been one of the most considered and scrutinised areas of public policy that this chamber has had to deal with. We have had extensive discussion—I think my office counted, just on climate change matters alone, some 13 inquiries by the parliament in the last year. Let us remember what happened—

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What about releasing the modelling?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know Senator Cormann, who is interjecting, just wants to oppose this. You know what I say to you, Senator Cormann? Why don’t you be brave enough and bring it into the parliament? Why don’t you be brave enough to debate it? What is occurring over there is an act of cowardice. But I will come to that.

In terms of what has occurred, this was a policy with which we went to the election. I hasten to add it was a policy Family First went to the election with. Senator Fielding, your policy in the lead-up to the election was for an emissions trading scheme—also the Greens, and of course the opposition. The opposition also went to the election with an emissions trading scheme as part of their election commitment—something they now have forgotten. I think there is over 10 years of analysis—I am pretty sure it was the 10-year anniversary of the very first report to the Howard government on emissions trading which we passed early this year. So the country has been debating this for over a decade. Both major political parties went to the last election with a commitment to legislate an emissions trading scheme. The opposition, the alternative government, went to the election with a commitment to an emissions trading scheme. This was based on the taskforce that Prime Minister Howard put into place, the Shergold taskforce. I remind the opposition that they said, ‘Let’s not wait until the rest of the world acts.’ So there has been a change of position over there. As I said, Senator Fielding—I think you were on the phone—Family First also went to the election with an emissions trading scheme as part of your election policy.

We go to the election and we then go through a process of consultation. The government a year ago put out a green paper: a detailed set of policy propositions building on work that had already been done, and I will give credit where credit is due, by the previous government, and doing far more detailed work. That was put out in June or July for consultation. In addition, the government does the largest economic modelling exercise in the nation’s history, where the Treasury models a range of emissions reduction scenarios predicated on the Garnaut review as well as the government’s own position, that comes out in October. Whilst this is occurring, Professor Garnaut is also doing his report and he issues a range of reports—modelling reports, interim reports, reports on various issues. Then of course there is the Garnaut review, which held public meetings in every state and territory, which had many people around the country contributing to it.

The government then put out our white paper in December of last year and set out in detail the policy propositions which we propose. I think it was some 800-odd pages, from memory, building on the green paper, considering what the Treasury modelling had said, considering what the Garnaut review had said and putting forward a set of propositions saying, ‘This is what we will legislate, this is what the government’s policy is.’ This takes us to December, and at that point the government is already saying, ‘This is when we will legislate; we want to legislate mid next year.’ We also put out exposure draft legislation on the CPRS, which was sent to the Senate Standing Committee on Economics. The economics legislation committee reported and the Senate considered the exposure draft of the legislation at that time. I mention that because the government actually chose to send draft legislation to a Senate legislation committee because we recognised the importance of this issue and because we wanted the Senate to engage early on this issue.

The government announced in May revision to some aspects, including the timetable of the CPRS, after consultation with the Business Council of Australia and the Australian Industry Group as well as the Australian Conservation Foundation, WWF, the Climate Institute, the ACTU and ACOSS. This is the level of discussion there has been and the level of consideration. The government then put this legislation into the parliament as we said we would consistent with the timetable we have previously made public. That is the backdrop to the debate we are having now.

What have the opposition been doing? That really explains what we are seeing today in this chamber. What we are seeing is really an extension of a tactic that the opposition have been engaging in for months. All they are taking today is the next step in their delay tactic path, which has been consistent. I have to be honest with you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I will say this about the opposition: they are not consistent on anything in climate change policy. They are completely divided. The only thing they can agree on is the need for delay. That is the only thing those opposite can agree on, and that is why they moved the motion that is before the chamber now.

Let’s remember what the opposition have said over this last year and a half or so on whether or not they were going to take any position on this issue of public policy importance, this issue of importance to the nation. Let’s remember how many excuses they have come up with. They said they would delay until the Garnaut review, but they have not had an answer. They said they would make a decision after the Treasury modelling. Oops! That came and went—no decision. They said they would make their decision after the white paper. Oops! No decision. They said they would make their decision after their very own review—is it the Pearce review? That came and went, with no decision. Then they said they would make their decision after the exposure draft legislation. Oops! No decision. Then they said they would make their decision after the Senate committee had reported. Oops! No decision. And now they say they do not want to make a decision until after these bills have been discussed or, alternatively, they actually do not want to talk about it until next year. That is what is occurring.

This is an extraordinary act of weakness by those opposite. Essentially what the alternative government are saying to the Australian people is this: ‘We are so divided we can’t make a decision, so we want the national parliament to hold off.’ That is what your position is. ‘We are so divided we can’t make a decision, so we want the national parliament to hold off.’ What a pathetic act of cowardice from the alternative government. If you had the courage of your convictions, you would come in here and debate this bill, but you do not have the courage of your convictions. You are hiding behind a weak and cowardly procedural tactic, and everybody knows it.

The fact is the opposition are only united on one thing, and the one thing is that they do not want to vote. That is the only thing the opposition are united on. I want to remind them of this, because they seem to be unable to listen to the Australian people who voted for action on climate change. They seem to be unable to listen to the Business Council of Australia, to the Australian Industry Group and to a range of large companies who are saying very clearly: ‘We need certainty.’ I remind the opposition of the comments of the Investor Group on Climate Change, a group of investors who have around about $500 billion of funds under investment saying that they want certainty. We are not delaying a signal to investors by deferring the start of the scheme by one year, but those opposite are continuing the same investment uncertainty which bedevilled them in government.

One wonders whether or not the opposition remember being in government. Do they remember that John Howard, their great—

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Their great leader, in inverted commas.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Cameron—I was trying to think of a phrase. John Howard was the great leader of the Right, the great leader of the conservative cause, who had a change of heart on the issue of climate change. Part of why he did was that business was saying to the government of the day, ‘We want certainty.’ Business is still saying that, and yet those on the other side seem to be unable to come to a position on this because they are still so divided.

I think senators opposite are cowards for not debating this, but I will say one thing about Senator Joyce. For all the argy-bargy in the previous debate, at least he has been honest about it in the public arena. He said, ‘We want to filibuster—we don’t want to vote.’ He has been upfront about it. He says, ‘We’ll just keep talking to delay a vote.’ At least he is honest about it, but Senator Minchin, Senator Parry and those who know that that is actually not a reasonable thing for the alternative government to say are trying to hide behind a procedural motion that says, ‘We think all these bills are so important, so we won’t support the government when they want additional hours but we will support ensuring that we delay discussing the CPRS vote.’

It is a position driven not by what is in the national interest but by what is in the interests of the internal position of the Liberal Party. The fact is that they have been so divided on this issue that the only issue they can agree on is delaying a vote. It is the only issue on which the opposition can agree. Our challenge as the government to the opposition is this: if you have the courage of your convictions, if you really believe this legislation is the wrong thing to do, then bring it on and debate it. But you are not—you are scurrying away in a pathetic act of weakness, trying to delay and filibuster this bill, making mealy-mouthed contributions which everybody in this chamber knows are simply about avoiding a vote.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the minute that is remaining, I will speak in support of the motion moved by Senator Parry and draw the attention of the chamber to the fact that we have a small formality to deal with by the end of June, and that is some budget measures that are time sensitive and that the government have told us have to be finalised by 30 June.

The motion that has been moved by Senator Parry is a very sensible motion and I suggest the government take the time, which they will have available to them when dealing with the legislation listed in the motion, to go back to the Treasurer, Wayne Swan, and ask him to provide the information about the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme to the Senate that the Senate has been asking for for eight to nine months before we deal with this legislation. The government, for eight to nine months now, has been refusing to comply with successive orders of the Senate that were seeking information about the impact of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme on the economy and jobs. So far, inappropriately, the government has refused to comply with very reasonable orders of the Senate, and so this is now an opportunity for the government to show some transparency and some accountability. Perhaps Senator Wong could go and talk to the Treasurer, Wayne Swan, and say: ‘Look, we have a few hours left and we now have some other legislation to deal with that is urgent and important. Let’s change our attitude to this. Let’s make sure that the Senate and the people around Australia have some proper information about what the impact of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme will be.’

Debate interrupted.