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

by leave—I move:

That, on each calendar day from Monday, 30 November 2009 until the Senate has finally dealt with the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2] and 10 related bills:

(a)

the hours of meeting shall be 10 am to 6.30 pm and 7.30 pm to 10 pm and if the Senate is still sitting at 10 pm, the sitting of the Senate be suspended till 10 am the following day; and

(b)

the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed after the Senate has finally considered the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2] and 10 related bills, including any messages from the House of Representatives.

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

I move:

(1)

Omit “on each calendar day from”, substitute “today,”.

(2)

Paragraph (a), before “6.30 pm”, insert “12.30 pm, 1.30 pm to”.

The main reason to include a lunch hour as well as a dinner break is that I am thinking in particular of Senator Xenophon and Senator Fielding. They have to maintain presences in this chamber throughout the entire debate, and I think it is only fair that they have the opportunity to leave the chamber on two separate occasions.

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! When there is silence we will proceed.

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

Thank you, Mr President. It is amazing that the objections to fair work practice come from the other side. With those comments, I commend the amendment to the Senate.

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

Mr President, I would like to move an amendment to the amendment.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Foreshadow it.

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

Don’t you move the amendment?

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

All right.

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

I move:

after “Monday, 30 November 2009”, insert “until Friday, 4 December 2009”; and after “finally dealt with the”, insert “committee stages of the”.

Add:

(c)

the third reading of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2] and 10 related bills not be put until the third sitting day in February 2010.

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

I admit, when rising to my feet, that I am a little confused about the amendments to the amendments to the amendments. I think it is intended that the Liberal Party are seeking to support the Greens motion that we adjourn at 10 pm this evening but for this day only. I think that is the intent of the Liberal amendment. I think the intent of Senator Fielding’s amendment is to again move his deferral motion which would prevent us continuing to debate the climate change legislation until February.

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

Senator Fielding interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Is this a point of order or a debating point, Senator Fielding? If it is a debating point, you can seek leave to clarify it later.

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

If I have misinterpreted Senator Fielding, it would probably be helpful if we actually made it clear. I am sure the Senate would give him leave. If I have misinterpreted what he is doing, and because the amendments have not been circulated, I think we need to be clear on what we are voting on.

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

by leave—To clarify, I am not saying the debate should be stifled. I am saying that the committee stage would proceed, allowing the debate to happen, but the third reading would be put next year. It would allow the whole debate to happen but the third reading would be put next year.

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

I stand by my interpretation that it is effectively a deferral motion. I just reiterate the Labor government’s position on this matter. We think the need for action against climate change is urgent. We have done for some time. That is why we went to the last election with a policy that committed us to action on climate change. It is also the reason why the Greens went to the last election with a policy for action on climate change. And it is also the reason why the coalition, the then government, went to the election seeking urgent action on climate change. John Howard argued that the Liberal Party had a commitment to urgent action on climate change and that they would introduce an emissions trading scheme. That is the policy that the Liberal Party and the coalition took to the election: a commitment to the Australian people that they would support urgent action on climate change.

For two years now this government has pursued an open process of trying to debate in the Australian community the need for action on climate change and to shape an appropriate policy response. Senator Wong and others have put a great deal of work into that. We are now in a position where a few weeks ago we entered into a good faith negotiation with the Liberal Party to get broad parliamentary support for the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, which would give business and the general community certainty about the future of an ETS. Mr President, as you know, we negotiated that agreement in good faith with the Liberal Party, and last week the Leader of the Liberal Party said we had a deal. It was taken to the party room of the Liberal Party and they said we had a deal. Now it seems that the Liberal Party refuse to honour that deal because not only did we have a deal on the passage of the legislation as amended but we had a deal that the Liberal Party would assist us in gaining passage of that legislation.

The Liberal Party agreed that the Senate would sit until we passed that legislation and that, if it was not completed on Friday, we would come back today and sit until it was completed. They agreed to this because of their concerns about voting for a guillotine. They committed to the fact that today we would sit until we completed the bill. That was the commitment; that was the deal; that was the promise.

It comes as no surprise to anyone that the Liberals have abandoned that commitment. They have reneged on that commitment. By moving the amendment and supporting the Greens motion, they give effect to a further betrayal of the arrangements which they entered into and which they publicly agreed to. I suppose it is no surprise to anyone that the Liberal Party would engage in such behaviour. Given the way they have treated each other over the last week or two, a betrayal of the Labor Party is probably no surprise at all. The way they have treated each other is one of the worst examples of betrayal and treachery we have seen in Australian politics for many a year.

The key point is that this is all about delaying a vote until the party room meets tomorrow. This is all about the Liberal Party delaying the vote until such time as those who are in rebellion against the current leader have an opportunity to change the policy. They have made it clear that they want to change the policy and change the leader. They will not accept the authority of any leader who supports action on climate change. The right of the party are in absolute revolt. They refuse to accept the policy they took to the election, they refuse to accept the policy of the party room and they refuse to accept the authority of any leader who does not reject the need for action on climate change.

So we are in the situation today where we are continuing with this pretence. The Liberal Party pretends that we are continuing to have a serious debate on the legislation while the senators led by Senator Minchin seek to undermine the leadership in order to avoid honouring the deal to support our ETS legislation. It is not just about seeking to defer the legislation. Senator Minchin and other conservative senators in this place have argued that a delay is necessary, but you only have to analyse their speeches and what they said in the second reading debate to understand their view. I think Senator Minchin described it as ‘an abomination’. So on one hand Senator Minchin says we need delay to look at the detail and on the other he says it is an abomination. That seems to me to be a fairly strong statement for someone who says he just wants to look at the detail. If you run through those speeches by Liberal senators, you will find that a vast majority of them actually argued they do not believe in climate change—they do not believe in human contribution to climate change. So it is not about the legislation; it is about the victory of the climate change deniers inside the Liberal Party.

The climate change deniers inside the Liberal Party have insisted that climate change does not exist, that action against climate change is not necessary and that they will not accept the authority of any leader who supports action against climate change. What we have today is a group of senators committed not only to making sure there is no action against climate change but to ensuring there is never a Liberal Party leader who is not opposed to effective action on climate change. They will not accept the authority of a leader who is committed to climate change action.

Mr Hockey is now faced with a Faustian bargain. He can have the leadership provided the deniers get their way. He can have the leadership provided he is prepared to sell his soul to Senator Minchin and the climate change deniers, because there is no other basis on which they will allow someone to lead the Liberal Party. They will not accept the vote of the party room, they will tear down the leaders and they will tear the whole party apart rather than accept action on climate change.

So Mr Hockey is faced with this Faustian bargain: to become leader he will have to toe their line, sell his soul to the climate change deniers and make the bargain that says, ‘You can be leader, but not of any party that is committed to climate change action.’ We are in the situation where not only have they reneged on their election promises—

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

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. I appreciate that we allow a very wide-ranging debate on these types of motions, but comments about Mr Hockey or anybody else have absolutely nothing to do with the motion before the chair.

Government Senators:

Government senators interjecting—

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

We are wasting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! On my right—I need order!

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

Mr President, we are wasting valuable time when we could be questioning the minister on this bill in committee and giving Senator Evans the indulgence of having a little political speech about particular people—and maligning most of them, I might say. I ask you to bring him to order and refer his comments to the motion before the chair.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order. Continue, Senator Evans.

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

This is very much about the motion, because this is about the Liberal Party reneging on a public agreement to bring this debate to a close and to support our legislation. That was the commitment you made to us; that was the commitment you made publicly. But, as I said, you have reneged on your election commitment to do this and you are prepared to tear down a leader to make sure it does not happen. Senator Minchin and Senator Bernardi—the climate change deniers—have said they will not accept any leader who is not prepared to make that bargain with them—that you will not have effective action on climate change. So the Liberal Party are in this position where they refuse to accept their own party room decision and are ensuring that there is no effective action on climate change. They argue that it is about delay and examination and, of course, everyone in Australia knows it is not: again, today they want to have a delay. They want to continue to run, but they cannot hide. In the end you have got to front up to your responsibilities; you have got to front up in this chamber and vote on the government’s proposal—just as you promised you would at the election and just as you promised you would last week.

Despite the total disarray in the Liberal Party, we would expect them to honour their commitment. What this motion is about is, again, breaching their commitments. They have no credibility left in this parliament and they have no credibility left in this community because they will breach any commitment and breach any promise, be it to the Australian people, the Australian Labor Party or anyone. They will—

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

Senator Minchin interjecting—

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

Senator, you may not like it, but your treachery has been on display all week. Being duplicitous with us is one thing but being duplicitous with your own leader is, I think, quite another—but you will be judged on that. The point I want to make is that the Liberal Party signed up to an agreement that would see us complete this bill this week—that we would sit today until we had resolved it. That was your public commitment, and by voting for the Brown motion and voting for your amendment you, again, renege on a deal. You again prove your word is worth nothing; you again prove that you stand for nothing and that you will do anything other than support action on climate change.

We will oppose this motion because it reneges on a public agreement. You again seek to delay and to defer, because you will not accept your responsibilities and because, fundamentally, the Liberal Party in the Senate is dominated and led by people who deny the human impact on and contribution to climate change. You will not, therefore, support effective action. That is why we oppose this hours motion and that is why we say the Senate ought to get on with the job. We have had two years of debate, and this is the second time we have attempted to get the bill through. We allowed a full fortnight last week, and all we got was filibustering and delay. The climate sceptics generally did not even come to the chamber.

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

You’re filibustering!

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

Senator Minchin, the Australian community knows your position on this. You may not like it, but you are exposed because what you are doing is undermining your own party, undermining your own leader and insisting that no leader can be elected by the Liberal Party unless he sells his soul to you and denies the effects of human action on climate change. We will oppose the amendment, we will oppose the Brown motion and we call on the Liberal Party to honour its agreement with us.

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

Senator Evans talked about breaking an agreement with the public. We made no agreement to have a one-hour dinner break. That was not breaking an agreement. This is a procedural matter on the sitting hours of the Senate. Senator Evans talked to matters totally not relevant to the debate. He wasted 15 minutes in the committee stage on Friday speaking about this. He has now taken another 11 minutes out of the committee stage and we want to get on with this. If Senator Evans were to be honest with the people, this matter goes to the heart of the problem. The Prime Minister will be embarrassed—

Government Senators:

Government senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! When we have silence we will proceed.

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

I wish to place on record that my earlier contribution to this debate took less than two minutes, and I will not speak very long this time. We are not going to waste the same amount of time as the government did, but the crux of this is that the government are embarrassed because the Prime Minister cannot get his agreement to run around the world to show off with. That is all this is. It has nothing to do with the hours of this place. We want sensible hours so we can have a sensible debate. Senator Xenophon and Senator Fielding, being Independents, have no backup support in their party structures, so they need to have some time out. I place on the record, in relation to the amendment to my amendment, that we will not be supporting Senator Fielding’s amendment and we will not be wasting any more time, as the government have been.

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

This seems like a bad deal between the government and the opposition coming to a bad end. I would have thought the government would support an amendment to an arrangement for some decency in the working hours of this place. That is what we have moved to do. It is reasonable that senators, after 24 hours, here have overnight before coming back. It might be necessary to sit for 12-hour shifts, but to sit 24-hour shifts is a bit beyond the pale. Those of us who have been here for a while know what that means. It means a great deal of failure to move on and pale faces and crankiness in the early hours of the morning. It is a very reasonable amendment. I think we can work out an arrangement to move forward. I take it from Senator Parry’s contribution that the new coalition does not think it will need more than tomorrow to dump the emissions trading scheme. As far as the Greens are concerned—

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

Defer it.

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

We will sit all week if you want to put it through. Let me say on the matter of deferral that opposition senators have interjected about that the opposition went into an arrangement with the government to transfer an extra $7 billion or $8 billion to the polluters, $6 billion coming out of the household allocation under the government’s already poor legislation. It was an opposition suggestion that that be done, and then the opposition party room discussed that for eight hours. It seems a bit strange to say the least, and very poor process to be more direct about it, that the opposition now wants to defer legislation it put forward effectively and it made up its mind on in a long party room deliberation until some time next year.

How unedifying is it that every member of the opposition looked at that deal of taking money out of households and putting it into the polluters? That is basically what the new arrangement is. Every member went through that; every member spent hours debating it and now they say they want a committee. Now that the arrangement has fallen down, they say, ‘We want a committee.’ That is an insult to voting Australians because it means that the party process is now overtaking the deliberations about emissions trading and an outcome for the Australian people.

I have to say this: in the middle of all this, the Greens have been consistent about where we are going. We know what the outcome should be. It is what the global experts are telling us this nation should be doing—that is, a target of 25 to 40 per cent distributed in a way which would help households, small business and innovators in this country. There you go. It is in this corner of the chamber that the consistency resides and will reside in this issue. I would say—I am not revealing secrets here—that I wrote twice to the Prime Minister in September and October, suggesting in the first of those letters that we sit this week for this very deliberation, and I got no response at all. There was no reply, so disdainful was the Prime Minister of Senate process.

But here we are now on the run sitting this week. The Greens are bringing some order and some suggestions for probity in the way in which we proceed so that, whatever the outcome, at least people are doing it with a modicum of good humour and with neurones intact so that detail can be looked at with the care and concern that the people of Australia deserve from us. We are happy to include a lunchtime. That is a sensible suggestion. If this motion is limited until tomorrow night then there may have to be some further procedural change after that. We would prefer the motion as it stands and it does have a dinner hour built in, so let us proceed on that basis. The idea of sitting all night tonight and then through certain party room deliberations tomorrow is simply silly and it is time it was rejigged.

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

It seems interesting that the Labor Party’s approach to the Senate now is to become mercenary, belligerent and arrogant. It has not taken very long for the Labor Party to change. It has not taken very long for them to put aside any desire for reasonable working hours, the said decency in working hours as put forward by Senator Brown. The Labor Party insist that they are going to try and pursue this case, even though they are getting thousands of emails telling them that the Australian people want this investigated.

The Australian people do want the appropriate policy response, but they do not acknowledge that the appropriate policy response is Minister Wong’s or Kevin Rudd’s appropriate policy response. In fact, that is not the only policy that is before us. We can look at a whole range of things, but the Labor Party, belligerent and arrogant as they have become, are going to try to bulldoze this through. They will vote for us to sit here forever because that is the new approach of the Labor Party. That is the type of party the Labor Party has become. And when they talk about a Faustian bargain, you sign a Faustian bargain as soon as you join the Labor Party because either you agree with them or you are kicked out. That is the only position they have in the Labor Party. Every time you sign up to the Australian Labor Party, you sell your soul.

Government Senators:

Government senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Joyce, wait a moment. You are entitled to be heard in silence. On my right: silence! Order!

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

This chamber will do its job in reviewing and amending legislation, and it will have the appropriate time and will follow the appropriate process. What we currently have with the Australian Labor Party is the $8.5 billion in extra costs and the $5.5 billion in savings from households, a $14 billion turnaround. They want to bulldoze that through. They do not want anybody to look at it. They do not want this Senate to do its job in reviewing and amending legislation and representing the rights of the people in determining how their money is spent. They know that the jig is up on the ETS, because the Australian people have seen through it. They are showing the Australian people just how arrogant they have become, showing the Australian people just how duplicitous they have become, showing the Australian people how they are willing to put aside the aspirations that are overwhelmingly seen in polls, where 60 per cent of people want a delay till after Copenhagen. But the Australian people want the appropriate policy response. They do not agree that this is appropriate and they do not agree that this is good for our nation.

It is now the Labor Party against the world—the Labor Party against the Liberal Party, the National Party, the Greens and the Independents. But the Labor Party believe that they are the benevolent source of information, even though they brought this deal and are trying to ram it through with this belligerent, arrogant response. Correct me if I am wrong: you intend for us to sit here nonstop. Is that right or is that wrong? The silence is deafening.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Address your comments to the chair.

Government Senators:

Government senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do not respond to Senator Joyce’s invitation to interject. It is disorderly. Senator Joyce, just address the chair.

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

I find the people who have found themselves sitting next to Senator Cameron have started talking like Senator Cameron and are completely inaudible. We will be voting to get appropriate hours for the deliberation of what is the most immense piece of legislation with the most diametrical outcome for the Australian economy. This is a discussion about what the economic ramifications for our nation are from this ridiculous proposition that has been put forward by the Labor Party and lauded as the only policy response. When people tell you that their policy response is the only policy response, you are talking to a completely arrogant, belligerent, duplicitous and out-of-touch government.

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

Unlike the Leader of the Government in the Senate, I will not be filibustering for 15 minutes—

Government Senators:

Government senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I will not ask the speaker to proceed until there is order. Senator Macdonald.

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

I will repeat myself because I am sure nobody would have heard what I was saying because of the rabble over there. Unlike the Leader of the Government in the Senate, who wasted 15 minutes of our debating time on a wildly inaccurate political speech, I intend to make my contributions very short. I think the amendment proposed by Senator Parry is the appropriate one and should be supported. I point out that Senator Evans’s justification for making us sit 24 hours a day without meal breaks for as long as it takes—and that seems to be the position of the ‘workers’ party’—is that this requires urgent action. I point out the hypocrisy of that with the government’s own legislation not wanting this scheme to take effect—

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

It’s the agreement with you. You’re voting against the Brown motion?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Evans and Senator Abetz, conducting your private debate across the chamber is disorderly. I am trying to listen to Senator Macdonald. He is entitled to be heard in silence.

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

Under the government’s legislation this scheme does not take effect until 1 July 2011—19 months away. The government wants us, in the next 19 minutes or perhaps the next 19 hours, to make a decision on an issue that it is not going to implement for 19 months. I will only say that as I do not want to hold up the Senate, but I think the Australian public need to know the hypocrisy of the Labor Party in demanding an urgent conclusion to this deal—this legislation which it says is vital to the world but which does not commence until 19 months time.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I indicate that I do support reasonable sitting hours. Fatigue scientists say that staying awake for 18 hours or longer is like having a blood alcohol level of 0.05 or higher. I would have thought that if any bills require sober reflection it is these Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme bills. Fatigue scientists also say that the longer you are awake the risk of hallucinations, paranoia and blurred vision increase. Memory and concentration lapse aside, I do not think it is reasonable that we have unreasonable sitting hours. I do not think legislation by exhaustion is the way to deal with the most important structural change to Australia’s economy. I support reasonable sitting hours. I think the outstanding question is whether we deal with this on Tuesday until it is concluded or whether there are reasonable sitting hours for that day as well. I look forward to the amendments in relation to that, but I do not support our sitting around the clock.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Fielding, there is some confusion: you have spoken to the amendment you moved. Are you seeking leave to make a further statement?

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

Yes.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

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

The reason I moved the amendment was that we should wait until after we know what the rest of the world is committing to. I have been through this in my speech on the second reading and I will not go through it again. That is the reason I am happy to have the discussion and debate in the committee stage. I suppose it will be a bit of a sham of a debate about the amendments, but we should be waiting until we see what the rest of the world is committing to. That is the substantive issue. That is why the third reading should not be put until February next year.

As I was walking into this chamber this morning, I happened to be listening to proceedings in the lower house. A statement was made—and I am happy to be corrected—by Mr Stephen Smith that the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme ‘regrettably’ was in the hands of the Senate. Regrettably! What does he mean by ‘regrettably’? This is the chamber that allows time to be spent on the issue. It is not a rubber stamp. You cannot extend it as a place of the lower house. This is the Senate and it deserves to make sure that legislation is properly questioned and properly scrutinised. To be absolutely real, the Australian public know that there has been less than a few short days to look at the changes that have been agreed to—we thought agreed to—with the coalition. I was listening to Senator Abetz last week and I have the Hansard here—

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

Mr President, a point of order: the senator was granted the courtesy of the chamber to give a short statement. He is simply redebating the point he has already made. It really is not consistent with the courtesy extended to him. It is simply a reiteration of the arguments he put before.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order. Senator Fielding, you are in order.

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

We do need to scrutinise the legislation. My second point is that it is interesting how the opposition now want fair hours of sitting. I can remember sitting ridiculous hours many a time under the Howard government. I really appreciate them worrying about my waistline and making sure that I have my lunches and my tea breaks. Senator Xenophon and I have already sussed about sharing lunch together on the actual issues but, really, it is a joke. I have said before, many times, that we do need to have dinner breaks and lunch breaks. We need to have a break to allow us to really properly consider things. Bulldozing things through this chamber is wrong.

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

There have been a few moments of irony in this debate; one of them is Senator Joyce yelling in the chamber, accusing others of belligerence, and the other is Senator Macdonald, after having been part of a party room which agreed to take action on climate change, lecturing the chamber about hypocrisy.

But let no-one be under any illusion about what is happening today, here in this place. The Liberal Party is preparing to walk away from the national interest. That is what is happening here today. The Liberal Party is preparing to walk away from action on climate change. A procedural game is happening, consistent with what has been happening for days—and all of last week—ever since those on the other side who cannot stomach taking action on climate change lost a vote in their party room: that is, procedural games in this chamber, designed to maximise the chance that they can avoid action on climate change. These are people, on that side of the chamber, who will do and say anything—including seeking to destroy their own—rather than take action on climate change. That is what is happening today.

Why is that? Why are they preparing to walk away from action on climate change? The reason is not that it is in the national interest. They do not want to do this because it is in the national interest; they are walking away from this because it serves their party political interests and it serves their extreme views. Everybody in Australia who has paid passing notice to this debate will know that Senator Minchin and others who hold extreme views on this issue have done nothing but try to work out how to run a campaign in their own party to avoid action on climate change.

The Senate has been a sideshow for the internal divisions in the Liberal Party. This chamber has been a sideshow whilst they try to get the numbers in their own party room, including attempting to tear their leader down. No-one watching this debate can be under any illusion as to why that is the case. The fact is that we, as the government, negotiated a deal with the opposition in good faith both on content of the bill and on procedure. It was an agreement to deliver this legislation, amended as agreed with your negotiating representatives and your leader. It was an agreement that would ensure the Australian parliament took action on climate change. We on this side say that the coalition should honour its commitment that there will be a final determination by the Senate on these bills as they agreed.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Who’s your leader? He’s gone.

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

Senator Bernardi, you can continue to interject—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Bernardi, it is disorderly to constantly interject.

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

but everybody knows you started out months ago, along with your boss, Senator Minchin, trying to tear this down. Everybody knows that.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What’s news about that?

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

I will take that interjection: ‘What’s news about that?’ There is nothing new about that. It is the same old tactic that you have engaged in for over a decade. Why does anybody think that they will change their minds? If we defer this, as they wish to, until after Copenhagen, does anybody honestly believe that Senator Minchin, who claims that action on climate change is an abomination and climate change itself is some form of left-wing conspiracy, is magically going to alter by the passing of a couple of months? I think not.

This is not an issue of scrutiny, because this legislation has been very thoroughly debated. It has been in draft form before this parliament since March, it has been before this parliament since May and it has been the subject of Senate inquiries. It has been debated once already in this chamber and voted down. It has been in the Senate—

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

I rise on a point of order, Mr President. I want the minister to refer us to which committee the amendments have gone to to be deliberated over.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not a point of order, Senator Joyce. That is a debating point, which can be taken up in the debate.

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

This went through the coalition party room. This is one of those interesting cases where, if you do not like the outcome, you try and wreck it. That is what is occurring here. They are trying to wreck not only this agreement and this policy but their own party. That is how desperate they are to avoid acting on climate change. That is how desperate they are: they are avoiding going forward with their own policy. John Howard, the former Prime Minister, went to the last election saying, first, that climate change was real—that is different to you, Senator Bernardi—and, second—

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on a point of order, Mr President. Senator Wong just said that I did not believe that climate change is real. I have stated on the record numerous times—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Bernardi, that is a debating point. You know it. There is no point of order. Senator Wong, address your comments through the chair. Senator Bernardi, it would help if you ceased interjecting.

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

John Howard went to the last election acknowledging that climate change was real and promising to take action on it. John Howard went to the last election with a policy to put in place an emissions trading scheme, which according to him—

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

With the assumption that it would be part of a global scheme. Nobody talks about that.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cormann, there is plenty of time, if these motions go through, for you to debate this later today.

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

The truth hurts, doesn’t it, Senator Cormann? Senator Cormann may have forgotten that he went to the last election as a Liberal Party candidate promising to take action on climate change and promising to bring in an emissions trading scheme. I would like to remind those opposite that former Prime Minister Howard very recently described the scheme before this chamber as being very similar to the one that he would have put in place.

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Wong, resume your seat. I will give you the call when there is silence.

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

Those opposite, who consider themselves the standard bearers of the Howard era, might want to recall, first, that Mr Howard went to the last election promising action on climate change and an emissions trading scheme and, second, that even the former Prime Minister has acknowledged that the legislation before the chamber is very similar, or not all that dissimilar, to the legislation that he would have implemented. But that does not matter, because those opposite have included in their ranks people so extreme that even John Howard looks like a greenie.

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

Is the US going to have a scheme in 2010? China in 2015? India in 2020?

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cormann, I remind you that the time for debating this is either later today when the hours have been set or during the debate.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ferguson interjecting—

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

Senator Ferguson is having a go at me about the amount of time I am taking in speaking. I want to make sure the chamber is aware of this. We have had some 15½ hours in committee debate. We have had some 21 hours on debate in the Senate on these bills. Anybody who looks at the Hansard will see what those opposite were trying to do. Australians know what you were trying to do. You wanted to delay the consideration in this chamber until you had a party room meeting to give yourselves time to destabilise your leader. What an extraordinary political campaign! This Senate has been a sideshow to your internal ructions.

I want to make a further point. The difficulty for the Liberal Party is this: what was in the national interest last week they are now preparing to walk away from. I would remind them that, for example, Mr Hockey said on 25 November:

… Malcolm—

Mr Turnbull—

is acting in the party’s interest and in the nation’s interest.’

He went on to say that the Liberal Party was ‘going to do the right thing on behalf of the Australian people’—and that was to vote for this legislation, as amended, and to vote for it in the time frame agreed with the government.

The question confronting all members and all senators of the Liberal Party is this: how is it that something that was in the national interest last week is now no longer in the national interest? How is it that something that was important and the right thing to do last week suddenly is no longer important and no longer right? I notice how quiet they have become, Mr President. The only difference is that the extreme hardliners inside the Liberal Party—

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

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. This bill in its final form has not spent one hour in an economics committee.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not a point of order; that is a debating point.

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

As I said, what was in the interest of the nation last week somehow has been morphed by the Liberal Party, who are now saying it is no longer in the nation’s interest. What was the right thing to do by the Australia people last week somehow has changed into no longer being in the interests of the Australian people. People do not believe them. People will not believe them. The reason is that everybody knows this has nothing to do with national interest. This has nothing to do with what is right for the Australian people. This has everything to do with the internal divisions inside the Liberal Party.

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

Senator Joyce interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Wong, ignore the interjections.

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

Senator Joyce interjects again and, really, he proves my point. Does anybody in this chamber believe that Senator Joyce’s interests in deferring this bill have anything to do with scrutiny? Absolutely not. It is just because he does not want to vote for the bill. He has always opposed it. It does not matter how much scrutiny there is, how many committee inquiries are held or how much evidence of what climate change means to the people who elected him is presented, Senator Joyce will not vote for action on climate change—end of story. That is the National Party and Senator Joyce’s position.

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

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. That is a complete misrepresentation.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Joyce, that is not a point of order. If you have been misrepresented, there are opportunities for you to speak later to correct the record.

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

Earlier this year, we passed the 10th anniversary of when the first report on emissions trading was handed to the then Howard government. Since that time, we have had both major parties go to an election promising action on climate change and promising an emissions trading scheme as the lowest cost way to achieve that. For example, under the previous government we had the advice to John Howard that an emissions trading scheme was the way to go and that deferral and delay meant higher costs. That was the advice to the then Prime Minister before the last election. Both major parties went to the election promising the Australian people action on climate change. One party today is walking away from that commitment. Members of that party are walking away from commitments entered into with the government in good faith on both the content and the procedure of the legislation. I will close by simply reminding the chamber of this: we as senators were not sent here to delay and we as senators were not sent here by the Australian people to play procedural games. We were sent here to make decisions and we were sent here to vote, and we should.

A political party that is so irresponsible as to utilise the procedures in this chamber to delay whilst they go through their internal political process, seeking to overturn an agreement they do not like, is not worthy of government. If anybody has any doubt about what is really happening, they only need to look at what the Leader of the Opposition is saying about those in his ranks and what they are currently undertaking. The fact is: there is a group of senators and members in the extreme right of the Liberal Party who cannot countenance taking action on climate change. They have campaigned against it internally and externally. They have shown extraordinary disloyalty inside their own party. They have breached their own election commitments to the Australian people, they have walked away from the commitments entered into in good faith between the government and the opposition—on the content of the bill and on process. They have done it because they simply do not want to act on climate change, and they will never change.

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

I rise to comment briefly—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you speaking to the amendments?

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

Yes, to Senator Fielding’s amendments. It might well be that people have actually lost sight of what was moved here. When I stood today it was simply to ensure that we have decent working hours.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very concerned that, as the mover, you may well be closing the debate in your speech. That is why I was quite specific. There are other senators who do want to speak in the debate. Are you speaking specifically to the amendments? You do have the right to an address in reply.

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

Mr President, I am just speaking to the amendments now, and I shall speak to close the debate when the debate closes. In speaking to the amendments, perhaps we can hasten that moment by making it clear that we will not be supporting Senator Fielding’s amendments to delay. The whole focus of the debate this morning is not to delay, and that is why we are opposing Senator Fielding’s amendments. I will make my further remarks at the end of the debate.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no doubt that a filibuster is going on here. Mr Alistair Jordan from the Prime Minister’s office walks in, and all of a sudden the Labor Party can spend an hour determining whether or not we ought to have a lunch break—but we cannot sit longer to consider the implications of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. Fifteen hours of debate is already a filibuster, but they have been filibustering for virtually an hour in relation to the sitting hours today. Quite frankly, the government ought to be ashamed of themselves. It will be embarrassing when the Australian people learn that the Labor Party spent more time debating whether or not we have a lunch break than debating the actual substantive issues. I would encourage all colleagues to keep their contributions very short so we can move to a vote.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that the amendment to the amendments moved by Senator Fielding be agreed to.

Question negatived.

Senator Parry has indicated to me privately that he will split his amendments—

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We know.

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

It’s got to be put on the record.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And it will be put on the record by Senator Parry now.

Government Senators:

Government senators interjecting—

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

I will ignore those comments from the other side. My amendments read:

(1)

Omit “on each calendar day from”, substitute “today,”.

(2)

Paragraph (a), before “6.30 pm”, insert “12.30 pm, 1.30 pm to”.

If the chamber is happy, I would like to split two elements of my amendments. The first part is to amend ‘each calendar day from Monday’. That would be one element of the amendments. The other part will be the consideration of the hours, being inserting a lunch break from 12.30 pm to 1.30 pm. Without going through the technical wording, those are the two elements.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not have the amendments before me.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We seek clarification. Senator Parry also moved the amendment to change ‘the following day’ to 1 December, and that is the element that we are keen to make sure we vote separately on.

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

by leave—Senator Siewert, through you Mr President, it was probably a superfluous addition when I first moved the amendment. By virtue of having today, Monday 30 November, at the commencement of the motion then really, tomorrow is Tuesday, so it does not really have any detrimental effect, and I understand it would really be in the first portion that you would want to say ‘on each calendar day’ where we are saying ‘today only’.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will put the second part of the motion: Senator Parry’s amendment reads ‘today’ and then changes the hours to between 10 to 12.30 and 1.30 to 6.30. Is there only one amendment or are there two?

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

By way of clarity I am moving that the Greens’ motion be amended in two parts. If we deal with the first part—that is, delete the words ‘on each calendar day from’ and insert the word ‘today’—that is the first amendment.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is the first amendment. All right, I will put that amendment.

Question negatived.

The second amendment is that the hours change by 10 to 12.30 and 1.30 to 6.30, there is a break between 6.30 and 7.30 and then 7.30 till 10. This is Senator Parry’s motion.

Question agreed to.

Question put:

That the motion (Senator Milne’s), as amended, be agreed to.