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

I move:

That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.

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

Mr Deputy President, the opposition ask that you put the question separately on the procedural element of the motion, that this bill may proceed without formalities. I wish to speak to that procedural motion.

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

There being no objection, we will separate the motion. The first question is that this bill may proceed without formalities.

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

It seems we have been in this place before. It was only a few weeks back that the government presented to this chamber, by way of transmission of a message from the House of Representatives, 18 bills. Although at first blush it seems a fairly unremarkable thing for the government of the day to move a motion that a bill or a package of bills may proceed without formalities and be read a first time, that package of 18 bills was no ordinary package of bills, and this 19th bill is in essence part of that same package. I think it is worth pausing for a moment to look at the basis of the motion that Senator Ludwig moved. It is to seek to avail the Senate chamber of standing order 113, which is headed 'Expedited proceedings on bills'. That standing order, at (2)(a), says that a motion may be moved containing the following provisions:

that the bill or bills may proceed without formalities (this shall have the effect of suspending any requirements for stages of the passage of the bill or bills to take place on different days, for notice of motions for such stages, and for the printing and certification of the bill or bills during passage) …

In the ordinary course of events in this place, where a government has gone to an election, presented a policy, been elected on the basis of that policy, prepared legislation and put it in this place, standing order 113 is taken advantage of. It is also taken advantage of in a situation where there is a pressing matter of public policy which the government of the day has to address, where legislation is prepared, it goes to cabinet and it comes into the Australian parliament. That is what standing order 113 is about—having an expedited process for the convenience of the chamber so that there can be an appropriate debate but that the debate is not unnecessarily complex or involved and that the procedures of the Senate are not unnecessarily complex and involved. There is good reason to have standing order 113.

In the ordinary course of events, the opposition and all parties in this place happily see the Senate avail itself of standing order 113. But this is not the ordinary course of events. This is not a situation which has much precedent in Australian politics. The situation which is before the chamber, which is before the Australian parliament, is one where a government went to an election and made a solemn pledge to the Australian people that there would not be a carbon tax. We all remember, clear as a bell, Prime Minister Gillard saying before the last election, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' That was a clear commitment. It was an unequivocal commitment. There were no qualifications to that commitment. That commitment was made freely. That commitment was not made under duress. That commitment was willingly given. The reason it was given, of course, was that the Australian people were starting to wonder whether the government, if re-elected, would introduce a carbon tax. The Prime Minister gave a political response to address that issue which was in the public mind. It was reasonable for us on this side of the chamber and for the Australian public to think that that commitment could be taken at face value. It is not every day that a Prime Minister solemnly declares not to do something. Usually in the course of an election campaign the focus is on those things that you will do. But this was a commitment to not do something, and the Australian public and we thought that that was a commitment that could be relied upon.

Shortly after the election—which the government did not win, but they were able to form government with the support of the Australian Greens and a number of Independents—the Prime Minister declared that there would be a carbon tax, in complete and flagrant breach of her solemn election commitment. That is the reason we find ourselves in this position today, where we are debating a procedural motion which in the ordinary course of events we would not seek to discuss. That is why we find ourselves today—as we found ourselves when the package of 18 bills was transmitted to this place—debating a procedural motion which in the ordinary course of events it would not occur to an opposition to do.

We do so for a very good reason, and that is that, if the opposition did not take each and every opportunity to shine a light on this breach of promise to the Australian people, we would in effect be complicit with the government in the facilitation of the breach of promise. We on this side not only have the duty of an opposition to critique, probe and question the policies and legislation of the government of the day; we also have a duty to hold the government to account for the commitments that they have made. That is what we are doing in seeking to debate this procedural motion. The Steel Transformation Plan Bill 2011 has been transmitted from the House of Representatives. For us to do other than to take this opportunity to delay the bill would see us as complicit in its passage, and that is something that this side of the chamber will not be. We will not be party, even in the smallest of procedural ways, to the breach of a commitment to the Australian people.

The title of the Steel Transformation Plan Bill 2011 makes the bill sound fairly innocuous. The government says, 'If you the opposition care about the steel industry and about employment in that industry then you should support this package of good and positive measures for the steel industry.' But there is only one reason to have a steel industry support plan, and that is if there is something that is going to damage that industry. And what is going to damage that industry is the package of 18 bills that the government is seeking to have passed in this place. You do not need an assistance package for an industry—you do not need a compensation package—if there is no pain to be inflicted in the first place.

And there is no doubt that massive pain will be inflicted on the steel industry by the government's carbon tax, just as massive pain will be inflicted on small businesses through Australia, just as massive pain will be inflicted on households, just as massive pain will be inflicted on families and just as massive pain will be inflicted on people covered by my portfolio, disabilities. In each case, the government says, 'Trust us: we have a compensation package.' The government says: 'Trust us: we're going to increase the age pension. Trust us: we're going to increase the carers payment. Trust us: we're going to introduce tax cuts that will compensate households.'

This is all based on trust, apparently. We are meant to trust the government that breached its promise to never introduce a carbon tax. What the government is saying is: 'Yeah, we fibbed; we fibbed and we squibbed. We know we said we wouldn't introduce a carbon tax. We were lying then. But when it comes to compensation for the carbon tax, you can trust us now.' Apparently, it is nothing to fib to the Australian people; it is nothing to make a solemn declaration to the Australian people not to introduce a tax—that is nothing. They want us to turn a blind eye to that. Although they were not telling the truth then, they claim to really be telling the truth now when they say that everyone will be adequately compensated. No-one in the Australian public—or almost no-one in the Australian public, if you look at the polls—buys that for one second. And why should they?

I have cited this before, but in Biblical terms, what the government is asking the Australian people to do is to swallow the camel but to strain out the gnat. They are supposed to swallow the big lie easily. But the Australian people are very savvy. They are very tuned in. They have a very good understanding of what makes up the character of a government. They get a sense very quickly and very early as to whether a government can be trusted or not. And they have been fundamentally and mightily betrayed by this government, so the public are not going to believe for a second that they will be adequately compensated. Indeed, by the government's own work and by the government's own admission there are large numbers of Australian households that will be worse off under a carbon tax, even after the compensation.

What we are expected to believe is that the compensation will increase over time as the carbon tax price increases over time. I do not believe for a second that it will. Just as we should not believe that compensation will be adequate for households and just as we should not believe that that compensation will not be eroded over time, we should not believe that the compensation and support for industry—even for the steel industry—will be adequate when compared to the pain inflicted on them. The Australian public have been lied to before. The Australian public know that, when it comes to this compensation package, the government is not being straight.

Why are we debating the particular motion before us today? Yes, obviously we are trying to use this procedural mechanism to shine a light on the government's breach of promise. But we are also debating this procedural motion because we do not think that the passage of this bill should be expedited, just as we do not think that the passage of the other 18 bills should have been expedited. The opposition are very strongly of the view that the more involved, the more detailed, the more exhaustive—even though more complex—manner of considering legislation should take effect and that standing order 113 should not apply to this bill and should not have applied to the package of 18 bills that came to the Senate a few weeks back.

The reason that we have this view is that this government has moved a motion that the guillotine will come into effect at the end of two weeks. They have allocated one week for speeches on the second reading. They have allocated a second week for the committee stage. So there will be two weeks in total for the Australian Senate to consider the most economically significant package of bills to be introduced to this place in my memory. The parallel is often made with the GST legislation, the package known as A New Tax System. That was important and significant legislation. Its economic impact was miniscule compared to that of the carbon tax package. Its economic impact was positive; the impact of the carbon tax package will be negative. But let's just put that aside. Let's just look at this in terms of the magnitude of economic effects, the magnitude of the change to the quality of life of Australians, the magnitude of the change to business. If you just look at it in terms of the sheer economic magnitude, this legislation does deserve a little more than two weeks consideration by the Australian Senate. The GST legislation went to about five Senate committees, which considered that legislation at the same time. From the beginning of the process of legislation being introduced into the House of Representatives for the new tax system, to the conclusion of the legislative process in this place, it took five months. With this legislation, through all stages, in both chambers of this place, you are looking at barely six weeks, if that—for legislation of this magnitude.

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

What's the hurry?

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

There is no hurry, as Senator Macdonald interposed there. There is no hurry; the world is not going to end if the legislation is not passed this year. We know the latest reason which has been put forward as to why this legislation has to pass: so the government and the Greens can strut around the Durban conference and say, 'We're world leaders in Australia.' What they should say if this legislation goes through is, 'We are world leaders at screwing our own economy, we are world leaders at screwing business and we are world leaders at screwing households.' But they want to strut. Vanity and pride are the reasons that the government is forcing this legislation through the chamber in such a fashion. It is vanity and pride: they want to strut, they want to stride and they want to boast. Forget the effects on the Australian economy. Forget what the Australian people think. Who cares what they think? We know the government don't care: they lied to them before the election, so why would they care what the Australian people think of the effect of this? No, no—they are far more concerned about what all the nations represented at Durban think. That is far more important to this government than what the Australian people think or what the effect on the Australian people will be.

We are kind of old-fashioned on this side of the chamber. We actually care what the Australian public think. Firstly, we don't think they should be lied to. Secondly, we care what they think. Thirdly, we care about the real-world impact this legislation will have on them. The contrast between this government and their attitude to the Australian people and that of the opposition could not be greater. On this side of the chamber we believe that there is a fundamental bond of trust which should exist between the voters and a government—a fundamental bond of trust. This government have broken that fundamental bond. This government are at odds with the will of the Australian people. And whenever a government is at odds with the Australian people, Mr Deputy President, I will tell you something that I know you already know: the will of the people ultimately prevails. The will of the people cannot be denied. It can be thwarted. It can be frustrated for a day. It can be thwarted and frustrated for a week, for a month, even for years. But, under our system of democracy, it cannot be thwarted, it cannot be frustrated and it cannot be denied for more than three years. After three years, and an election, the will of the people ultimately will prevail.

That is the true folly of this package of legislation: that a government which fibbed to the Australian people is legislating a package that it said it would not. The government is insisting on putting that legislation through this place, even though it knows the people's will will be expressed at the next election, even though it knows that at the election the people will make it clear that they do not want this legislation—even though they know that an incoming coalition government would repeal that legislation. Even despite its knowledge of all those points, the government is determined to put this package through. The government is determined to wreak havoc on the Australian economy, determined to hurt business, determined to hurt families—and we will not facilitate that happening in any way, shape or form.

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

This morning we see another display by the opposition of wasting valuable time dealing with a procedural motion rather than the clean energy package. These procedures were put in place before I entered the Senate, in fact, which was in 1999. They have been there, available to use—and I don't complain if people use them; they do serve a purpose. Since I have been in the chamber, more than 12 years now, I can only recall—the record may correct me—them being used at the most once or twice, usually for the purposes of a stunt. There was no other reason than that. Of course, sometimes they are good stunts and sometimes they fall flat. But, nonetheless, it is a usual procedure to expedite proceedings so that the Senate can get on with business. And that is exactly what we are here today to do: to use the available time to deal with the clean energy package.

I hoped a couple of weeks away from the chamber may have settled the opposition down from creating stunts on procedural motions, but it seems that it has not. It seems that they are full of vim and vigour to concentrate on procedural aspects of the chamber rather than the substantive matters that we do need to debate here today. Senators will recall that when we last sat, on Thursday, 13 October, the opposition excelled themselves in time-wasting. In the closing hours of the Senate Senator Abetz sought to defer consideration of the clean energy bills, yet again. And Senator Macdonald moved dissent from the ruling of the chair—subsequently withdrawn, and I thank Senator Macdonald for that. But it did seem clear that the Senate did not support the attempts to distract the chamber from the substantive matters that were before it. I understand that some of those from the opposition find it amusing to manage the Senate in this way. I think that a bit of commonsense should prevail. We should get on with the substantive matters that are before the Senate today. Unfortunately, the opposition again moved this morning that the steel bill should be procedurally dealt with rather than allowed to be part of the package of bills that we need to manage in the chamber in a sensible way so that everyone can contribute. I do recognise that there is a long list of people who want to contribute to the clean energy package. There are more than 30-odd names already on the list. I have not counted them all, but it is a page-long list of people who want to speak in the Senate on the clean energy package and make a contribution.

All of the points that were made by the Manager of Opposition Business could be made by those in the opposition during their contribution on the clean energy package. No doubt, though, they will—it may be repetitive—and it is their entitlement to make the points again about the clean energy package. They have stated their position. However, the government has allowed plenty of time for people to make their contribution during the second reading debate on the clean energy package. The number of senators who have put their name on the list demonstrates that the opposition does want to contribute during the second reading debate on the clean energy package, and I encourage them to do that. No doubt they will use their time effectively to do that.

The steel bill, which is before us, has been passed by the House through the normal transmission of the bill. It should proceed through the chamber here. As many, many bills have done, it should simply be reported in a message and we can get on with the substantive matters that are currently before the Senate today rather than again make the procedural points that have been becoming quite frequent from the opposition. One would think that the opposition can only manage procedural motions rather than the substantive matters of the clean energy package before us today, but that is for others to judge. After spending more than a day in the last sitting week on procedural discussions, a full day could have been utilised for making these points during the substantive debate. Nonetheless, we will again spend some time on procedural motions as the opposition seems to have a want to do. However, can I encourage them to get on with the substantive matters—to get on with the clean energy debate— rather than utilise time on procedural motions.

I recommend that we deal with the procedural matter quickly. It seems that the points the opposition have again made today they made last time we sat. It seems a little repetitive. Their arguments have not changed substantially. All of those arguments they have made they have made before, time and time again. The Senate should cease indulging the opposition on these procedural motions and the introduction of this bill should proceed. We should get down to the business of debating the legislation. In standing, of course, I am closing the debate. Therefore, I do not need to put the question. If that is needed, I will, but I understand that by standing I do close the debate. Question put:

That this bill may proceed without formalities.

The Senate divided. [10:38]

(The President—Senator Hogg)

Question agreed to.

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

The question now is that the bill be read a first time.

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

Mr President, I raise a point of order. All members should consider a process of voting against any measure being brought into the Senate for debate. I put this forward for consideration.

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

There is no point of order.

The Senate divided. [10:42]

(The President—Senator Hogg)

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.