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

I move:

That the Senate take note of answers given by Senators Evans, Wong and Carr to questions asked by all coalition senators today.

Mr Deputy President, one of the great joys of being in this Senate is having the opportunity to speak before you and through you at this time of day.

Government Senators:

Government senators interjecting—

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

It is a statement of fact.

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

It has always been a great joy to sit in here.

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

We are approaching the first anniversary of what former Prime Minister Rudd refers to as 'Assassination Day'; and, while Mr Rudd may have cancelled the anniversary wake, there are those opposite who are starting to think more than a little wistfully about Mr Rudd's administration. While I think there is general consensus that Mr Rudd is probably the worst administrator ever to hold the office of Prime Minister, there is one thing that he did not do: he did not break the fundamental compact of trust that exists between the Prime Minister and the voting public.

Senator Brandis today asked Senator Evans if the Prime Minister still believes in the words she said:

I think when you go to an election, and you give a promise to the Australian people, you should do everything in your power to honour that promise.

Senator Evans's response was quite extra­ordinary. Senator Evans said that the coalition was seeking to rerun arguments of past years. It seems that truth is so passe; truth is so last year. It was an extraordinary comment by the minister. But I would want to forget last year as well if I were Senator Evans, because it was last year that Prime Minister Gillard solemnly stared down the camera and said to the Australian people, as we know, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.'

As we know, she is seeking to do the opposite: she is seeking to introduce a carbon tax. When someone says that they are going to do something and then they do the opposite, that is called a—I will not say the word, because it is unparliamentary, but it starts with 'L' and ends in 'E'. The Prime Minister also said before the last election that, before seeking to price carbon, she would seek a community consensus. You will recall that that was the gestation of the idea of a citizens' assembly. That idea, being so absurd, fell by the wayside, and shortly thereafter the promise not to introduce a carbon tax also bit the dust.

The Prime Minister has abandoned her solemn commitment, and it is not surprising that the Australian people in response are abandoning her. The Prime Minister has tried to put this broken promise into context. She has said that she is seeking the same destination, just by a different road. She has said that this carbon tax will represent reform. We all know economic reform. It has to do one of a few things: it has to help lift productivity, lift employment, lift the regulatory burden on business or reduce tax. The carbon tax, clearly, does none of those things.

Her latest attempt to provide a justification for this tax and put it in context is to say that she wants to 'remake how we experience what it means to be Australian'. She sure would—Australians would experience higher petrol prices and higher electricity prices, and there would be fewer jobs, less manufacturing and business would do it tough. She would change the way that Australians experience what it is to be Australian, but it will not be too long before we see another change of Prime Minister. I believe we will see Mr Rudd at the lectern in the Blue Room or in the Prime Minister's Courtyard, and we will hear Mr Rudd commence his press conference by saying, 'As I was saying before I was interrupted'. We will see this change, because this government has broken the compact with the Australian people. Our view is that they should put this matter to a plebiscite to test the will of the people. We know what the answer would be.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I agree with one thing that Senator Fifield has just said: it has always been a pleasure during this process, Mr Deputy President, to have you in the chair in this period of taking note. In turn, I think it is splendid that we can agree on that.

It is interesting that we have heard so much protestation from the other side about the concerns over having community consensus and the issue of getting people together. The one little element that was not mentioned in this great cry for a plebiscite of all people—getting out and testing the market, finding out what Australians really want—is that the person who is advocating that has already said that it does not matter what comes out of such a plebiscite. It is not going to make any difference, because he is still going to be opposed to the carbon tax—that is, carbon pricing or any other response to climate change. He is opposed to the whole kit and caboodle, in fact. That is the one clear element that has been maintained throughout this debate; the people on the other side have made it really clear. There is no doubt—they oppose.

So in the debates that have been going on we have heard protestations that the Prime Minister made statements before the election that after the election were not fulfilled. At no time has the Prime Minister or anyone on this side denied that that statement was made. At no time did we say, 'No, that's not true.' What we and the Prime Minister said was that, because of the overwhelming threat of climate change to our community, there needed to be some action taken. The Prime Minister then went out to the community and said that she was trying to seek a cross-party working group to look at the issues around climate change and at responses which could include a climate tax. Those were the words.

We did set up a cross-party process, only it did not include all the cross parties. It included the Labor Party, the Greens and the Independents. In that part there was a genuine attempt to come up with a proposal that would then be taken to the Australian public. That is what was going to happen. There is no surprise and no hiding; there is a process by which there has been an attempt to get more information through Professor Garnaut's work and through the work of the Productivity Commission so that we would have the facts to would determine the best way to respond to what people believe is an important threat to our community: climate change.

The response from the other side is not a surprise. It was to oppose. They said: 'No, it won't work. It won't happen and it won't happen under our watch.' That has been said so many times in various ways by the opposition. We understand their position. It does not matter what arguments are put up. It does not matter why people think this should happen, because there is a genuine threat and there needs to be a response. The Prime Minister has said that as a result of the cross-party working group there will be specific information provided so that discussion can continue around the issues.

We now have a premise but we do not have the core detail, which gives open slather to people on the other side to create the most horrific exaggerations and myths around what could happen. That is an easy tactic and is something for which we must be prepared. It is going to be the job of the government and of the people who want to work with the government to ensure that there are clear facts for the community so that they understand exactly what the government response will be. Then that whole debate will be taken through this place—it is the only way the system works—and there will be particular legislation developed. There will be a full debate which will engage with the community through the media across the whole of our country to identify the best way forward.

As I have said so many times in this place, this is not an issue just for Australia. We are part of a world community and we must be part of a world response. It is no good to say that we do not have a role. It is no good for anyone to say, 'Just oppose'. We have to identify the issue and then make a concerted effort to find a response.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I support the previous two speakers in relation to your position here today, Mr Deputy President. I am sorry to see it soon to conclude.

The question to Senator Evans was about the carbon tax. Senator Moore said that we are going to proceed with action and the department will decide. The fact is that the Prime Minister said to the Australian people before the election, 'There will be no carbon tax under any government I lead.' Prime Minister Julia Gillard is now leading the government—that is why she resides in the Lodge—and now she is bringing in a policy to introduce a carbon tax. That is what this motion to take note of answers is about.

Why was this policy brought on? No doubt the Greens played a big part in this whole issue and contributed enormously to the decision of a price on carbon, which the Productivity Commission says is the cheapest way to address climate change. If it is the cheapest way, why isn't the rest of the world doing it? Why is Australia the only one with a plan to put a price on carbon across the whole economy? Europe has not done that. New Zealand, which produces 0.1 of just one per cent—which is three parts of nothing—of the world's greenhouse gases through burning fossil fuels are trying to keep their price down as they know what it is doing to their economy. Last night I was listening to the radio and a New Zealand dairy farmer was talking on 2CC in Canberra. Apparently it is going to cost the average dairy farmer $11,000 over three years in New Zealand, and they are going to move in 2015 to include agriculture.

But why is this so? In the days after the election, when the Prime Minister was talking with people such as the Independent member for New England, Mr Windsor, who said, 'Will you form the multiparty com­mittee and revisit climate change policy?' He was driving this same issue with the Greens. This week Mr Abbott has done his best to try to get the Australian people to have a say on this very issue. Let us have a look at what Mr Windsor said back in 2003 in relation to Senator Alston and the privatisation of Telstra:

If Senator Alston doesn't like the wording of my survey, then I invite him to do his own survey of the people of the New England electorate.

Senator Alston has the resources to undertake the task and I would encourage him to do it.

What's he got to be afraid of?—finding out what the people want!

That's what democracy is all about—finding out what the people want and representing their views in the Parliament and I challenge Senator Alston to debate the issue in any forum ...

When the committee gets it final decision on how they are going to introduce this carbon tax—which, as a result of the Copenhagen collapse, is not going to affect the world in any way whatsoever—I wonder if Mr Windsor is going to survey the people of New England? I wonder if he is going to practise what he preaches? I would say probably not. He said he will survey his electorate when it comes to issues such as same-sex marriage. That is perhaps a delicate decision he might have to make for fear of getting offside with some of his voters. But on these issues I would be very interested to see if Mr Windsor practises what he preaches.

I will certainly survey the people of New England and the people of Lyne in Mr Oakeshott's electorate. Mr Oakeshott said that he would 'vote for the carbon tax tomorrow', but that was a couple of months ago, and now he is back-peddling at a rapid rate of knots. I will certainly carry out a survey in those electorates. We will see if these Independents, who claim to be the people's representatives, really are the people's representatives and whether they pay attention to their electorates or are just Labor Party stooges. We have known for years how the Labor Party has supported the Independents in regional New South Wales. Well, on 26 March the people of New South Wales saw through that. That is why three out of four of them have been cleaned out.

We come back to trust in government. Treasurer Wayne Swan said there was 'This hysterical allegation' by the opposition that if somehow they won government they would introduce a carbon tax.' He was denying that before the election. Now what are we facing? The government are going to put a price on carbon because it is the cheapest way to go, according to Mr Swan. But I say it again: if it is the cheapest way to go, why isn't the rest of the world doing it? The United States, China, India, Japan, Korea—they are not putting a price on carbon. The fact is that the government have betrayed their commitment to the Australian people and the Australian people will square up next time they have a say.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I too would like to congratulate you on your term, and your commitment and contribution to this place. Having been here with you for six years I have appreciated your guidance at times during the taking note of answers proceedings of the Senate—not all the time, but most of the time.

We have to be realistic: when we come into this place it is quite wrong for a senator to mislead the Australian community. I want to put it on the record, in relation to what is happening with carbon pricing around the world, that Australia is not tackling this alone. We know that. Even those people on the other side know that. The Prime Minister of New Zealand, a conservative I might add, addressed a joint sitting of both houses of parliament yesterday. We know, as those opposite do, about the actions that New Zealand is taking against climate change and the emissions trading scheme that was introduced there in 2008. The Prime Minister of the UK, David Cameron, is seriously talking about the need to tackle climate change. It is quite wrong for those opposite to say that Australia is trying to go it alone and what we are planning to do will not have any impact. That is quite wrong.

The stunt that Mr Abbott tried this week by recommending and moving legislation in relation to a plebiscite once again demon­strates how those opposite underestimate the Australian community. The Australian community are not silly. They know that this is another stunt, just as they know Tony Abbott is the Leader of the Opposition you could not possibly trust to be Prime Minister of this country. We know his record when it comes to health. We talk about core and non-core promises and election commitments that those opposite seem to think are not being kept, but we know what Tony Abbott did when he was Minister for Health. We know because we are still trying to recover the billion dollars he gutted out of health when he was minister. Those opposite should not for one minute believe that the Australian community are going to be conned. In terms of broken commitments, those opposite—and Senator Ryan was not here at the time—know the former Howard government were the experts when it came to core and non-core promises. We know and the Australian community know what the opposition's track record is.

Let us turn to the other issue raised in question time today: the refugees and the Malaysian solution that we are putting forward. I find it quite extraordinary that those opposite come into this chamber and try and lecture us about how to deal compassionately with refugees. We all know that the issues that Australia confronts with people-smuggling is a travesty. We should be, and we are, doing everything we can to stop the people smugglers. The opposition suggest that they know better when they had 11½ years to resolve these issues. We know their track record on how they treated women and children in the refugee camps. We know their track record and so do the Australian people.

I was really glad the whip asked me to speak in this debate, because those opposite once again tried to come into this chamber and lecture us about financial responsibility when it was those opposite that voted against just about every measure that we put in for savings in this budget. The response of those opposite when the global financial crisis hit Australia was: 'Let's keep our heads in the sand. Let's just wait and see what happens. Let's not overreact.' But the reality is, if we had not invested in the infrastructure in this country, had we not kept Australian workers in jobs, we would have been in a depression. What we did was talk about things that are positive instead of doing the opposite all the time.

Talking about the great investment made by this government in education, look at the BER funding. It was the best investment in education in this country for decades. Those on the other side can come in and try and rewrite history when we talk about financial responsibility, when we talk about the treatment of refugees, when we talk about the need to confront and deal with the tough issues like climate change. We will take the leadership.

Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business and Fair Competition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I join my fellow speakers in congratulating you. I can say that as a mentor to newer senators like me—I have only been here for three years—and as a former housemate, you will indeed be missed. I wish you all the best.

I do not know where to start following Senator Polley's contribution, in the most liberal use of the word. I will have to limit myself to only a few issues raised in question time today. This government, its ministers, its senators and its members all stand condemned. There are various reasons for it, including their profound mismanagement of the nation's finances—which, in a vain attempt to defend, Senator Polley could not even bring herself to mention the numbers that are involved in Australia's record debt for which this government only has a defence that our neighbours are worse off. The government's only defence of the amount of money it has borrowed in a record ramp-up of debt is simply, 'The guy over the road owes a lot more.' The people of Australia deserve better than comparisons to the fiscal disaster zone that is Europe and that is the United States. This government could have ensured Australia did not have the level of debt that people like David Murray and economic commentators right around Australia are saying has exposed us to economic risk that was completely unnecessary.

This government stands condemned for its sheer incompetence in managing the resources and programs of government. I cannot believe that Senator Polley decided to refer to the government's so-called investments in infrastructure as a badge of honour. We could refer to the billions of dollars wasted in home insulation, the billions of dollars wasted in school halls—both of which those opposite were warned, before the money was spent, before the money was appropriated and while it was being spent, were leading to record waste. If this side of the chamber had been in office, I can only dream of the wailing that would have occurred from those opposite, the champions of the workplace and of workplace safety, when people died on the watch of the programs that they appropriated money for. That just goes to show how this government has no credibility.

We come to the most important issue of all—and that is the issue of trust. We all know circumstances change. We all know the world is an evolving place, whether it is security, whether it is the international economy, but on the issue of the carbon tax there was no doubt: 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' Those are the words of the Prime Minister, no matter what the contrived or confected excuse, including the allegation that we cannot be left behind the world. The Productivity Commission has punctured the myth that the world is acting and that Australia will be left behind. In a reflection of the diseased state Labor parties from which so many members of this government have been drawn, they changed tack, they reverse course and they hope that people will forget by the time of the next election. Well, the Australian people have seen that and it has been rejected right around Australia at the state level—whether it is Bob Carr promising to get rid of tolls on Sydney's toll roads or Steve Bracks prom­ising there will be no tolls on the Scoresby Freeway, there have been numerous promises made by the state Labor governments to be elected and then reversed. This goes to show that this government simply cannot be trusted. Like a person on a winter's day, the government hides under the doona of reform, shivering from the people and claiming that the word 'reform' will cover them. But you cannot hide from the bitter cold of a people who are aggrieved by the breach of trust. The people will hold this government accountable. The truth is that this proposed carbon tax has nothing to do with economic reform; it has nothing to do with the reform agenda of the eighties.

In the eighties and nineties we removed trade barriers, we removed embedded costs on the Australian economy and we made our tax system, labour market and financial systems more competitive—all of which will be reversed by a carbon tax. This carbon tax dramatically increases the scope of govern­ment activity in our economy, and the truth is that that is the reason they want it. They want a carbon tax because they want to be able to hand out favours—whether it is in the form of free permits or welfare payments—to their favourite groups. As the Prime Minister said, you want to remake Australia. Well, the opposition will not only fight you but will do so proudly and make sure this Labor government, this pale reflection of a once great Australian political party, is rejected by the people at the next election.

Question agreed to.