Sean Edwards (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, my question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Evans. Can the minister explain why the government has allocated only 19 days to consider 19 bills in a single committee for its carbon tax legislation, effectively giving one minute per member per bill for debate?

Government Senators:

Government senators interjecting—

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

Senator Edwards, resume your seat. I remind those on my right that the senator is entitled to be heard in silence.

Sean Edwards (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Does the minister consider this adequate parliamentary scrutiny—

Honourable senators interjecting—

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

Order! Senator Edwards, resume your seat. It is on both sides.

Sean Edwards (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Does the minister consider this to be adequate parliamentary scrutiny and parliamentary accountability for what will be one of the biggest and most complex legislative changes in this nation's history?

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

Senator Edwards, I thank you for the question. I will give you a bit of advice because you are new: you have been set up by your colleagues. There is a reason why none of the frontbench asked this: they were all here when the Howard government guillotined through bill after bill. They were here when we were given a matter of hours to deal with bills. We were given 30 minutes before second reading speeches were intro­duced. What we have done is allow time for proper debate of the legislation. There is a proper joint select committee and we are setting aside two weeks to debate those bills. How we use that time will be up to the opposition. Whether they engage with the bills, whether they take a positive attitude to examining the bills, is up to them. If, as we have seen over the last two weeks, they just deliberately time waste and seek not to engage in the proper parliamentary process is a decision for them. I say to the senator: be very careful what they give you to stand up and ask, because the record of the Howard government in these matters was appalling. This government has given people a month's notice and a Senate select committee. The bills are available now and, when we come to debate them in the Senate, a full two weeks will be set aside for that debate. We encourage you to actually take an interest in the content rather than just in the rhetoric.

Sean Edwards (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

(South Australia) (): Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the Minister representing the Prime Minister for reminding me of the Howard era. Is the minister aware that, even after putting the GST to the people at an election, the Howard government established four Senate committees, with an average of 121 days each—a total of 480 days through which the committee process was able to scrutinise the legislation. Is the government's refusal to submit the carbon tax legislation to an election or to the same level of parlia­mentary scrutiny just another example of how far it is willing to go to avoid the kind of public accountability— (Time expired)

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

I encourage Senator Edwards to go and have a look at the Hansardand examine the Howard government's handling of the Work Choices legislation, and he will never have the gall to stand up and ask such questions ever again. As I said, despite all the earlier inquiries into this subject matter, there will be a full joint select committee inquiry. There will be two weeks of Senate debate set aside to deal with those bills. It is a question about whether the opposition will engage in serious public policy or continue with negative rhetoric.

Sean Edwards (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Given that the Prime Minister said in the other place yester­day that the vote on her carbon tax legisla­tion will be judged by every Australian, judged now and judged in the future, why won't she take it to an election so that she can be judged by every Australian and judged now?

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

I think Senator Edwards has learnt about how quick people are to judge members of parliament. We get judgement all the time, some of it fair and some of it unfair, and I think he has had a baptism of fire in that regard. At the next election, we will all be judged and we will all be held accountable for how we vote on this legisla­tion. I will be voting for it and I will be happy to explain my position publicly. We will all have to, as I say, seek the support of the Australian people. Democracy in Austra­lia requires governments to go to elections and stand on their record. This government will do so and we will do so proudly.