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

by leave—I move:

That the order of the Senate agreed to on 21 September 2011, relating to the hours of meeting and routine of business, be amended as follows:

  Omit paragraphs (3) to (6), substitute:

(3)   On Wednesday, 9 November 2011, and Thursday, 10 November 2011, any proposal pursuant to standing order 75 shall not be proceeded with.

(4)   That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the Australian Renewable Energy Agency Bill 2011 and a related bill.

(5)   On Thursday, 3 November 2011:

  (a)   the hours of meeting shall be 9.30 am to 8.40 pm;

  (b)   consideration of general business and consideration of committee reports, government responses and Auditor-General's reports under standing order 62(1) and (2) shall not be proceeded with;

  (c)   the government business order of the day relating to the Clean Energy Bill 2011 and 17 related bills shall have precedence over all government business;

  (d)   divisions may take place after 4.30 pm; and

  (e)   the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed at 8 pm.

(6)   On Tuesday, 8 November 2011:

  (a)   the hours of meeting shall be 10 am to 6.30 pm and 7.30 pm to 10.40 pm;

  (b)   the routine of business from 10 am to 2 pm, and from the resumption of government business till not later than 5 pm, shall be the government business order of the day relating to the Clean Energy Bill 2011 and 17 related bills, and these bills have precedence over all government business till completed;

  (c)   commencing immediately after the preceding item the order of government business shall be consideration of the government business orders of the day relating to the:

     (i)   Steel Transformation Plan Bill 2011, and

     (ii)   Australian Renewable Energy Agency Bill 2011 and a related bill; and

  (d)   the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed at 10 pm.

(7)   On Wednesday, 9 November 2011:

  (a)   the order of government business shall be consideration of the government business orders of the day relating to the:

     (i)   Steel Transformation Plan Bill 2011, and

     (ii)   Australian Renewable Energy Agency Bill 2011 and a related bill, and

     that consideration of these bills shall have precedence over all government business till 5.30 pm; and

  (b)   consideration of government documents shall not be proceeded with.

(8)   On Thursday, 10 November 2011:

  (a)   the hours of meeting shall be 9.30 am to adjournment;

  (b)   consideration of general business and committee reports, government responses and Auditor-General's reports under standing order 62(1) and (2) shall not be proceeded with, and instead the routine of business shall be government business only;

  (c)   the government business order of the day relating to the Tobacco Plain Packaging Bill 2011 and the Trade Marks Amendment (Tobacco Plain Packaging) Bill 2011 shall have precedence over all government business, except that the routine of business from 12.45 pm till not later than 2 pm shall be the following government business orders of the day:

Excise Tariff Amendment (Condensate) Bill 2011

Excise Legislation Amendment (Condensate) Bill 2011

Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Air Cargo) Bill 2011

Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave) Legislation Amendment Bill 2011

Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No. 7) Bill 2011

Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Participants in British Nuclear Tests) Bill 2011

Work Health and Safety Bill 2011

Work Health and Safety (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2011

Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2011

Navigation Amendment Bill 2011

Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment (Oils in the Antarctic Area) Bill 2011;

  (d)   divisions may take place after 4.30 pm; and

  (e)   the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall not be proposed until a motion for the adjournment is moved by a minister.

(9)   The government business order of the day relating to the Clean Energy Bill 2011 and 17 related bills be considered under a limitation of debate and that the time allotted be as follows:

  (a)   on Thursday, 3 November 2011, from not later than 3.45 pm to 4 pm—second reading; and

  (b)   on Tuesday, 8 November 2011, from not later than 11 am to noon—all remaining stages.

(10)   The government business order of the day relating to the Steel Transformation Plan Bill 2011 be considered under a limitation of debate and that the time allotted be as follows:

  on Wednesday, 9 November 2011, from not later than 10 am to 11.30 am—all remaining stages.

(11)   The government business order of the day relating to the Australian Renewable Energy Agency Bill 2011 and a related bill be considered under a limitation of debate and that the time allotted be as follows:

     on Wednesday, 9 November 2011, from the completion of the Steel Transformation Plan Bill 2011 till 5.30 pm—all remaining stages.

(12)   The government business order of the day relating to the Tobacco Plain Packaging Bill 2011 and a related bill be considered under a limitation of debate and that the time allotted be as follows:

on Thursday, 10 November 2011:

from not later than 3.45 pm till 7 pm—second reading

from 7 pm till 8 pm—committee stage

from 8 pm till 8.30 pm—all remaining stages.

(13)   Paragraphs (9) to (12) of this order operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142.

I table a statement of reasons relating to the Australian Renewable Energy Agency Bill 2011 and a related bill, and seek leave to have the statement incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The statement read as follows—

STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION IN THE 2011 SPRING SITTINGS

AUSTRALIAN RENEWABLE ENERGY AGENCY BILL 2011 AND

AUSTRALIAN RENEWABLE ENERGY AGENCY (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) BILL 2011

Purpose of the Bills

These bills create the independent statutory authority, the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) and a statutory position of Chief Executive Officer of ARENA.

The bills confer functions and powers to allow the ARENA Board to make independent and binding grant funding decisions for renewable energy and related technology innovation funding currently administered by the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism and the Australian Solar Institute (ASI). ARENA will be responsible for awarding grant funding and other forms of financial assistance for the research, development, demonstration, deployment and commercialisation of renewable energy and related technologies and projects.

The bills further make consequential amendments to the proposed Clean Energy Regulator Act 2011; repeal the Australian Centre for Renewable Energy Act 2010; and transfer the policy advisory and related functions provided by the Australian Centre for Renewable Energy to ARENA.

The bills also incorporate the functions, responsibilities and activities of the ASI into the ARENA.

Reasons for Urgency

The bills require urgent drafting for the 2011 Spring Sittings period. This is to allow the bills to be considered alongside other legislative bills being considered in the sitting period that are part of the Australian Government's carbon price legislative package.

If these bills are not considered alongside the other legislative bills that enable measures agreed as part of the carbon price package, this could impede consideration and passage of the Clean Energy Future legislative package through Parliament.

The need for these bills was previously unseen, as the formation of ARENA was only recently agreed.

This motion is to facilitate the consideration of government legislation in the Senate, including the clean energy package of bills and a number of bills which include the steel, ARENA and tobacco bills. First, let me summarise this motion's effect, should it be passed, for the information of the chamber. The second reading debate on the clean energy package will draw to a close this afternoon at 3.45 pm. The committee stage of the package follows, with all government business time on Monday to be spent in committee on the bills. The committee stage will be completed by 11 am on Tuesday, 8 November. The Senate will then debate the steel bill at 10 am on Wednesday, 9 November. The Senate will debate the steel bill till 11:30 am on Wednesday, 9 November, and then move to the Australian Renewable Energy Agency Bill and a related bill till 5.30 pm that day. After private senators' business and housekeeping on Thursday, 10 November, a range of non-controversial legislation is listed for debate and in the afternoon the tobacco package will be debated and finalised.

Opposition senators interjecting—

I say to the opposition that they will shortly have an opportunity to put their grievances. However, at this point I am trying to outline for the information of the Senate what the hours will be. There are also two minor changes to sitting times. The Senate will commence at 10 am on Tuesday, 8 November. The adjournment will be a little later, as on Thursday, 10 November.

I have moved this motion because it has become quite clear that the opposition will do almost anything to delay voting on the clean energy legislation. Yesterday the Senate spent 3½ hours debating a relatively minor committee matter that could have been resolved out of the chamber. Instead the opposition chose to waste a significant amount of government time and to avoid debate on the clean energy bills. This is in addition to the hours previously spent in these spring sittings debating procedural motions: over two hours to set up the joint select committee on the clean energy package and over three hours on setting up the initial motion for this fortnight's sitting. That is a total of five hours on procedural motions, not on the substantive matters, not on the actual bills themselves, but on procedural motions only. The Senate, as I think is demonstrated by those opposite, seems to be unable to use its time constructively to debate the substantive matters. It is no surprise that in the sitting week in September the Senate spent just 33 per cent of its time on government legislation.

This time wasting has meant that the government is simply forced to move this motion today given the enormous amount of time that the opposition have spent on procedural motions. The Senate has to clear time for finalising significant legislation in a predictable way so that there is also space for the remaining legislation within the program. Notwithstanding the opposition's attempt to continue to use procedural matters to debate and waste time, the government is trying to achieve a balance between ensuring there is reasonable time on the clean energy package and allowing time for the consideration of bills. So far more than 40 senators have spoken on the clean energy package in the Senate. This motion contains reasonable time for committee consideration of the bills over three days, assuming that the opposition do not continue to get up to procedural shenanigans and waste their time when they could be dealing with the substantive matter within the bills. But we do already know the outcome of any opposition consideration: they will not support the bills, regardless of their complaint. They are crying crocodile tears here today. They are already clearly on the record as opposing the bills outright. They have already indicated that should these bills pass they will repeal them if they get into government. They have made their position obvious.

Let me summarise how much time we have spent on debate even though we know the opposition will continue to oppose. So far there have been nearly 55 hours of debate on the clean energy package in the parliament, and this motion allows for more. As of today more than 170 parliamentarians have spoken on the package, including 75 coalition MPs. This is a longer debate than the former Howard government allowed on the GST, on Work Choices or on the sale of Telstra. In addition to debate in the chambers, there have been hundreds of hours of committee hearings on the clean energy package. There have been 36 parliamentary inquiries and from the 2007 election until the defeat of the CPRS there were 13 parliamentary inquiries relating to climate change and the CPRS legislation. Those bills were considered twice by the Senate and there were over 63 hours of debate. Only the native title legislation and GST debates come close to that.

By any measure the Senate has spent a massive amount of time on legislation to which the opposition remains implacably opposed, and it is time for the chamber to focus on finalising the issue and moving the legislation on before the end of the sitting year. We want to get on with a number of other bills in the last two weeks of parliament as well. Those opposite continue to harp on with the same line. It is a refrain that I have heard from the opposition during five or six hours of procedural debate. I do not intend to take up my full time because I want to give the opposition the opportunity to deal with this motion and then the legislation. If they want to state their position on procedural motions then they can, but ultimately they should get on with the substantive task of debating the clean energy package. But I do not think they will. I think they will continue to argue and argue on procedural matters, which just demonstrates that they have lost their way.

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

The Australian Labor Party have always had nothing but unbridled contempt for the Australian Senate. It was long the platform of the Australian Labor Party to have the Australian Senate abolished. They might as well put that back in their platform because today the Australian Labor Party have declared that they no longer see a role for scrutiny in the Australian Senate. The Australian Labor Party have given up any pretence of going through the barest motions of parliamentary scrutiny on this carbon tax legislation package. What we are seeing today is extraordinary. We are seeing what is in effect a gag on a gag. It was bad enough that the government put in place a gag to come into effect at the end of next Thursday, but bringing that forward to Tuesday morning next week represents a direct attack on the fundamental role of this chamber to provide scrutiny of legislation.

Senator Chris Evans, at the same time he was proposing with one hand the extra sitting week next week—which we were all meant to be extremely grateful for—was taking with the other hand by putting in place a guillotine motion. Senator Evans's media release of 21 September said:

... the Senate will have more than two full weeks to debate the Clean Energy package of Bills.

We were entitled to take the government at face value and believe that there would be two full weeks to debate the clean energy package of bills. It was not nearly enough; there should have been in the order of five months to consider something of this magnitude. That was the period provided to consider the goods and services tax legislation, the new tax system legislation, which did not have nearly the far-reaching economic consequences of this carbon tax package.

We were meant to be grateful for two full weeks. That is what the government and Senator Evans undertook to provide for this package of bills. We will not have two full weeks, as Senator Evans promised, for the consideration of this legislation. We will not even have 1½ weeks. This week was meant to be fully dedicated to the second reading debate. Next week was meant to be completely given over to the committee stage of this legislation. But all stages of this package of 18 bills will now be concluded by 11 o'clock or 12 o'clock on Tuesday morning—not even a day and a half for the committee stage of legislation of this magnitude.

In my seven years in this chamber I have never seen anything as audacious as this. When we were the government we were lectured time and again by the Australian Labor Party about the importance of scrutiny and the importance of the Senate as a house of review. We were told time and again that the Labor Party in office were going to be so much better; that the Labor Party were going to establish new standards of accountability, new standards of scrutiny, new standards of probity, new standards of propriety—and apparently new standards of administrative competency as well. None of that has come to pass.

I find it difficult to believe that Senator Ludwig, who is a straight shooter, has agreed with this course of action today. I think he has been given his orders by the Prime Minister and I think he has also been given a set of orders by the government's coalition partner, the Australian Greens. How do we know that? I will leave you hanging as to how we know that the Australian Greens really issued the order for this, because I have a feeling Senator Abetz may have something to add on that. So I will just leave you hanging.

Another outrage with this motion is the fact that GetUp! seem to have known about the decision to bring the carbon tax legislation to a vote on Tuesday before the Australian Senate knew. The government advised the opposition yesterday afternoon of their intention, but, when you jump on the web, you see that GetUp! have had buses booked for a couple of days to bring people from Sydney, Melbourne and from all over Australia for the grand celebration of the passage of the carbon tax legislation.

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

If you thought that we saw scenes of celebration and jubilation in the House of Representatives when the carbon tax package passed that place, you ain't seen nothing yet compared to what they have planned for Tuesday next week.

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

We saw disgraceful scenes in the other place when the carbon tax package legislation went through—disgraceful scenes, with government ministers kissing, embracing and whooping it up that the carbon tax legislation had passed. What they were really doing was whooping it up, embracing each other and congratulating each other because they had completed the first stage—

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

Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. Senator Ian Macdonald referred to the young people involved as the 'Hitler Youth'. I find that extremely offensive and I ask him to withdraw.

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

On the point of order, Mr Deputy President: before you take any instructions, I suggest you hear what was actually said to Senator Milne. I repeat it now: 'GetUp! is the Hitler Youth wing of the Greens political movement,' and I stand by that.

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

There is no point of order, Senator Milne, but I would remind senators that interjections and speaking when not given the call is disorderly.

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

When we saw government ministers in the other place shaking each other's hands and giving each other hugs to celebrate the passage of the carbon tax legislation, they were celebrating the first stage in a breach of promise to the Australian people. Prime Minister Julia Gillard put her hand on her heart and declared on one of the morning TV shows, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' Treasurer Swan said that anyone who did not believe that was being hysterical, that anyone who doubted the Prime Minister was 'an hysteric'. So we had hand on heart, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead,' with no qualifications. That was a commitment and it is a breach of that commitment which was being celebrated in the other place. Such is their contempt for the Australian people. That was the first stage in their breach of promise. We are now well down the path for the completion of the second stage of the breach of promise and the Greens and GetUp! are already gathering for that celebration. We can understand the Greens and GetUp! celebrating, because for all their faults the Greens at least have had a consistent policy that they want to impose a carbon tax on Australians. They were at least upfront about this, but the true travesty, the true outrage, is that the Australian Labor Party want to join in those celebrations and will join in those celebrations. This is deceit on a massive scale.

Senator Ludwig said that we prefer on this side to continue to debate procedural motions, that we do not want to debate the substance of the legislation. I could not disagree more strongly because these procedural motions are of great note, of great significance. The procedural motions which the government are moving are part of the facilitation of the breach of promise. For the opposition in any way, shape or form to turn a blind eye, to wave through procedural motions of this nature, would make us complicit in the breach of promise to the Australian people. We cannot do that. This is not just a procedural motion; this goes to the very essence of the breach of promise because, had the government not broken their commitment to the Australian people, we would not be debating this procedural motion. There would not be a need; there would be no legislation.

We have to hold this government to account. We have to remind the Senate at every opportunity that this government is seeking to break its ironclad commitment and we will not be complicit for one second in what the government is intending to do.

I have something here which I think will make you laugh. Senator Evans's press release from yesterday announcing that the guillotine was to be brought forward from Thursday next to Tuesday next, was headed—and this is almost Pythonesque—'Extended sitting hours for Senate to pass legislation', the clean energy package. So 'extended sitting hours' is now how we describe a gag on a gag. That is how we describe a guillotine being brought forward from one day to another, and that is as an extension of sitting hours! You could have fooled me. I thought that was a limitation of sitting hours. I thought that was reducing debate. I thought that was curtailing scrutiny. I thought that was limiting the opportunity for senators to do their job, but no. Apparently the way we extend hours is by reducing them! This is bizarre. What planet are these people on? They extend hours by reducing them. This is madness. I am not speechless but I must confess to being gobsmacked. It is bad enough that this government formed office on the back of a lie. It is bad enough that this government fibbed to the Australian people. It is bad enough that they are seeking to breach their solemn election commitment. What the government should do is immediately withdraw this legislation. They should discharge these bills. They should go to an election and seek the mandate of the people. They should seek the verdict of the people—the verdict the people were denied the opportunity to render at the last election. But we know they are not going to do that and we know that they are committed to breaking their election commitment. That is bad enough, but the least that you would expect this government to do to regain a little bit of dignity, to regain a little bit of decency, is to have a proper parliamentary process, proper parliamentary scrutiny. The lie was bad enough, but there should at least be decent parliamentary scrutiny—

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At a minimum.

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

at a minimum. We on this side of the chamber have all said time and again that we think a period of something of the order of five months would be appropriate to consider legislation of this magnitude, as was the case with the new tax system legislation, where we had multiple Senate committees inquiring at the same time. I will just put to one side the fact that we took the goods and services tax to an election before deciding to put the legislation into parliament. I will just leave that to one side as a mere technicality, because I know that is all the government see it as—a mere technicality. There should be something of the order of five months, but we know that this government is not committed to serious parliamentary scrutiny. You would have thought, though, having rushed it through the House of Representatives, that they would at least go through the barest of motions of parliamentary scrutiny in the Senate.

The first thing you would do is you would have a decent Senate committee inquiry, and that would involve having multiple Senate committees inquiring at the same time into different aspects of the bills. That is something that the opposition proposed and the government said: 'No, we prefer having a mickey mouse joint committee that was racked and stacked.' The 18 or 19 bills were racked in there and the membership was stacked to ensure a preordained outcome. Senator Cormann and Senator Birmingham did their best on that committee to at least bring a modicum of scrutiny. They did an outstanding job, but the numbers were against them. The outcome was a foregone conclusion. You would have thought that there would at least be a decent Senate committee inquiry process.

This chamber has always jealously guarded its prerogative to undertake scrutiny the way it sees fit. In this chamber, we are not too fussed if those in the other place have their own committees. That is fine. They can do what they want. We are not too fussed if there is a joint committee. Joint committees can do what they want. But this chamber jealously guards its prerogatives and its rights, and this chamber was denied the opportunity to exercise that function of review, that function of scrutiny, by the Australian Labor Party and by the Australian Greens.

Having had that opportunity for scrutiny denied, we thought at the very least the government would provide a reasonable amount of time. It would not be enough, but at least it might at face value look like an attempt at some decent parliamentary scrutiny. And what do we see? We thought the government would give two weeks to this chamber. Senator Evans said in his press release that the Senate would have more than two full weeks to debate the clean energy package of bills. That is not enough, not nearly enough, but we thought: 'Well, they have denied proper scrutiny in the House of Representatives—they rushed it through—and they denied the opportunity for Senate committees to meet and inquire, they have denied a decent length of time for the Senate itself to consider these bills, but at least they will honour the two weeks that they committed to. At least they will do that.' No. Senator Evans's words are not worth the paper they are written on. Never again will we believe a word that Senator Evans says—never again. Why would we? This is black and white.

But we should not be surprised. This is a government that finds it as easy as getting up in the morning to say, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead,' and then, 'Sorry, we lied—there will be.' If you do not struggle with deceit of that magnitude, merely fibbing to this place about having two full weeks of debate will come very easily. So we should not be surprised. Why, therefore, should we or the Australian people believe this government when it says: 'Don't worry about the cost implications for the household budget of a carbon tax—you'll get decent compensation. Don't worry, business, about the cost implications of a carbon tax—you'll get decent compensation. Don't worry about the rise in the carbon tax over time—we will increase the compensation'? If you cannot believe that the government would stick to its word not to introduce a carbon tax, if you cannot believe it when it commits to two full weeks of scrutiny of the carbon tax in this place, why should anyone believe that compensation for the carbon tax will be adequate? You cannot believe a word those on the other side say.

Madam Acting Deputy President Moore, welcome. It is good to see you in the chair. I will not ascribe any particular thoughts to you on this issue. That would be quite wrong. So I will instead ascribe them to someone else in this chamber—Senator Faulkner. I think that Senator Faulkner would be absolutely disgusted by what is occurring here today. Senator Faulkner holds himself up as a paragon of virtue. I think Senator Faulkner is possessed of a bit of integrity and a bit of decency. He has styled himself as one of the custodians of the rights and prerogatives of this chamber, as an elder statesman who is committed to proper parliamentary scrutiny. I think Senator Faulkner would be disgusted at what we are seeing here today. The Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Evans, committed to two full weeks of scrutiny of the carbon tax package of bills, only to completely go back on his word, only to put a gag on a gag. I would hope that inside the Australian Labor Party there is great angst about this. It is bad enough that the Australian people were lied to. I will not say it is worse that proper parliamentary process and scrutiny is not being brought to bear. I will not say that it is worse, because nothing could be worse than lying to the Australian people. But this is shameless. This is outrageous. It is disgusting that the Australian Senate is being denied the opportunity to provide decent scrutiny of the most economically significant package of legislation to be brought before this place in living memory. I hope we do not see something of its like again. I really hope we do not.

In a sense, this is not a partisan issue. I would have hoped that all senators were committed to this chamber doing its job. It does not matter if the positions of the various parties are already determined. It does not matter if it is highly likely that this legislation will go through this place. This chamber still has a job to do to scrutinise legislation. This chamber still has a job to do to hold the government to account. This chamber is being denied this opportunity and the government should be condemned. (Time expired)

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh, how a once proud Labor Party has become a pathetic shadow of its former self. Today we are witnessing again the Australian Labor Party coming into this chamber to do the Greens' bidding. Yesterday the first and most urgent item on the government's agenda was to remove a coalition senator from the chairmanship of a committee and to replace that very good senator with a Greens senator who has only been here for five minutes. It was Senator Ludwig, Manager of Government Business in the Senate, who moved the motion, doing the Greens' dirty work. Here he is again today and his first item of business is to bring to fruition that which the Australian Greens bragged about on their website before the Senate was even told what was planned in relation to the truncating of the debate on the clean energy bills.

I refer to the Greens website, which told us that there was going to be an historic vote. It said:

If you are near Canberra next Tuesday, please come to the Senate to see the historic carbon price package pass into law.

We were able to access that well before—indeed, hours before—Senator Ludwig rang Senator Fifield to tell him what the Labor Party had in mind. It is quite clear that the Greens and GetUp! developed their strategy, put it up on their website and then told the hapless Manager of Government Business in the Senate, 'You will now ring the opposition and tell them that this is what is going to happen,' and, as if he were Senator Brown's ventriloquist doll, that is exactly what Senator Ludwig did. I was surprised at Senator Ludwig's speech this morning because I could have sworn it was Senator Brown speaking, but Senator Brown did not move his lips at all. An expert ventriloquist is our Senator Brown because he has a willing doll in Senator Ludwig, who is willing to mouth that which Senator Brown wishes to put to the Senate. It is interesting that it is always the Labor Party doing their dirty work. It is never the Greens actually getting up and asking, 'We want to pull a stunt on Tuesday; therefore, can we bring the vote forward?' No, they do it under the guise of the Australian Labor Party and the Manager of Government Business in the Senate, which highlights yet again that they are in an alliance and therefore not deserving of the chairmanship of a committee, which they got just the other day.

One wonders what the Greens, with arrogance and hubris oozing out of every pore of their collective body, see the role of the Senate as being. They put up on their website what is going to happen. Yesterday it was the chairmanship of a committee. Today it is a vote of the Senate in relation to truncating what the Australian Labor Party and the Greens boast to be the most important piece of legislation ever to come before this parliament. When they say it is historic, I think they are right. As we know, the books of history are littered with events good and bad. This will be an historic event which will go down on the bad side of the ledger. History will record that the Australian people were deceived, that a leader of the Australian Labor Party and a deputy leader of the Australian Labor Party went to the electorate saying there would be no carbon tax. Every single Labor member and senator in this place and the other place was elected on a promise of no carbon tax, as was every one of the coalition members and senators. So well over 90 per cent of parliamentarians were elected on a no-carbon-tax policy. Yet, somehow, it is going to get through against the express promise of all those parliamentarians to the Australian people. This gross deceit is now dressed up as being historic.

The Australian Greens might boast and gloat and say this is a wonderful historic day when the tail is able to wag the Australian Labor Party dog, but I say to those in the Australian Labor Party that this will be a historic day for the Australian Labor Party as well because the good, conservative, blue-collar workers whose jobs you will be destroying and whose cost of living you will be increasing will know that those good, traditional Labor values for which you once stood have now been discarded in favour of doing the bidding of the Australian Greens. That is why the Australian people wherever I go these days are saying, 'Eric, when can we have an election?'

I have been involved in politics a long time, not only as a senator, but as a state president and before that as a rank-and-file volunteer. Come election time, most people say, 'Oh no, not again, not another election.' Now the Australian people are actually clamouring and asking: 'When can we have another election?' The reason for that is that they feel betrayed and they feel deceived. They have a right to feel deceived, because that is exactly what the Australian Labor Party has done to so many of their very good and very faithful followers—people who have voted for the Australian Labor Party for generations in fact. A lady came up to me the other day and said, 'My father and his father before him were proud Australian Labor Party voters. I'm 70 years myself, Senator Abetz, but do you know what? Come the next elections, state and federal, I will be voting for your party, Senator Abetz. I never thought I'd be saying that to you, but it's nice to meet you here at the shopping centre.' That was at Eastlands, over on the eastern shore of Hobart. She indicated to me that she was switching her vote, and the reason was the deceit and betrayal by the Australian Labor Party in relation to the carbon tax promise.

The Australian Labor Party is right to call what will happen on Tuesday a historic day, but it will be a day that will be marked in the index of the history books under the word treachery. You will look up the word treachery and you will see an insert underneath it: ALP carbon tax. Because that is exactly what the Australian Labor Party has done: it has deceived the Australian people. This government has no moral authority to introduce this legislation, because it said it would not. As a result, of course, it stands to reason that neither does it have a mandate for this legislation. Indeed, the exact opposite is true. Nor can the Australian Labor Party hide behind the assertion, 'Sure, we said one thing before the election, but the Australian people have changed their mind. There is popular support for this move. We were somehow out of step and we are now going to bow to the will of the Australian people.' We know that that is untrue as well. So on what basis does the Australian Labor Party come into this place and vote for this legislation? No moral authority, no mandate, no popular support: why would you do it other than to protect one job, the job of the Prime Minister, Ms Gillard? That is the only reason, and it is a shameful reason. When you lie to the electorate in a democracy you do not have a mandate and you do not have popular support. One wonders what motivates the government in relation to these matters.

I understand that the Australian Greens have a view on precommitment with poker machines. I never knew that their views on precommitment extended to votes of the Senate, because they have precommitted by their media releases votes of the Senate in relation to, I think it was, Senator Wright getting a chairmanship before the Senate had decided anything. It begs a very interesting question: why was Senator Wright given that chairmanship and not Senator Sarah Hanson-Young? Senator Hanson-Young has more seniority, she has been here longer and we know that the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee deals with matters legal and immigration, which are her forte. But, somehow, the Greens have overlooked her. Senator Milne, who is in the chamber, is busy studying her papers. We know why, but we will leave that for the Australian Greens to sort out. That is another indication of the arrogance of the Australian Greens: that they were willing to put out a press release, precommit the Senate and indicate what was going to happen. On the Greens website yesterday the same arrogance and hubris showed through. It is an honour and a privilege to be able to serve in this place, but for the Greens to treat this place now as their own fiefdom because they can make the Australian Labor Party do whatever they want is not something to be proud of and it is not something to be claimed as historic.

I return to the once great Australian Labor Party. They do have a few days left to redeem themselves in the eyes of the Australian people. They might do that by trying to change their leader. We do not know what they are going to do in that regard; that is for them to determine. One thing I would say to the Australian Labor Party, that once great party that did actually look after workers, that was actually concerned about jobs, that was actually concerned about people's cost of living, is that you still have a few days left to change your mind. You can change your vote. You can decide, 'We will in fact honour that which we promised, we will in fact honour the mandate we were given, we will in fact honour the popular view of the Australian people,' all three of which are against the introduction of the carbon tax. I have no doubt that if the Australian Labor Party were to do that their support in the opinion polls would go up. It would go up; there is no doubt about that. I say to the Labor Party: 'Change leaders as often as you like. Your problem is not your leader and your leadership; your problem is your policy.' It is a policy that is nowadays linked inextricably with the Australian Greens. You have formed a dirty deal with the Australian Greens. You have formed an alliance and partnership that will haunt you to your political graves, because the Australian workers, whom you used to champion, whom you used to look after, know that the carbon tax proposals are bad proposals for their jobs and their cost of living. These workers are also very decent people, very decent Australians who are genuinely concerned about the future of our environment. But they know that this carbon tax suite of measures will do nothing to help or protect the environment. The coal workers in the states of Queensland and New South Wales say, 'It is passing strange, is it not, that this Australian Labor Party, which used to support us, says it is right to dig up coal in Australia, ship it to China, burn it in China for the benefit of the Chinese and not tax it but, if we dig out the same Australian coal and burn it in Australia for the benefit of Australians, it is an unmitigated evil that needs to be taxed?'

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Extraordinary.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is, as Senator Ronaldson just said, extraordinary. Where is the logic in that? Ms Gillard is saying to people, 'We will increase our coal exports despite these clean energy bills.' So we are going to ship out the coal from Australia, give everybody else the advantage of our high-quality, cheap coal, without a tax, but tax Australians who want to use Australian coal for Australian households and Australian manufacturing. Go figure. This is the policy of the once proud Australian Labor Party. As we have said before as a coalition, time and time again, there is a better way to do this. We have a direct action plan. I will not repeat that now, other than to say it is good, practical and fully costed.

If the Australian Labor Party were genuinely concerned about carbon dioxide emissions, what could they do for the benefit of the people of the world? They could simply say to the Indian government, 'You can have some of our uranium.' That would do more than anything this carbon tax could provide. That would reduce carbon dioxide emissions many times more than this carbon tax would. But once again the Australian Workers Union, other unionists and Labor Party people would say: 'Hang on a moment. How is it that this once proud Australian Labor Party says you can dig out Australian uranium, ship it to another country to allow them to use it to heat their homes and to help them supply electricity for their manufacturing sectors, and that that is a good thing to do, but somehow it is an unmitigated evil if we dig out Australian uranium for use in Australia by Australians for Australians?' That is the great dilemma that the Australian Labor Party has.

I have said once before to Senator Ludwig, 'If you lie down with dogs, you will get up with fleas.' The Australian Labor Party have deliberately got together with the Australian Greens and they now have flea-infested policies all over them, from the carbon tax to all manner of other things.

Senator Brandis interjecting—

I agree with Senator Brandis. Senator Scott Ryan went one better than that analogy. He disagreed with me. The flea analogy was not all that good, he thought. He thought the Greens were more like a tick that was—

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sucking the lifeblood.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, sucking the life out of the Australian Labor Party. That is what the Australian Greens are doing and, lemming-like, the Australian Labor Party just march towards the cliff. They know what is going to happen. They still have three days. I somehow think the reason they have sought to truncate this debate is that they are not sure that they could have kept the whole Labor caucus together in relation to this issue for the next couple of weeks. The Labor Party also need to explain to this place whether Senator Stephen Conroy is going to make a contribution in this debate and put on the table how strongly he feels about the need for a carbon tax. I somehow think that he will not be making a contribution and that they will be seeking to put him out of his misery more quickly by having this legislation voted on earlier than anticipated.

The Manager of Government Business in the Senate also needs to advise the Senate of why they came into this place, moved an extension of hours and days—indeed an extra sitting week—on the basis of the need to debate the carbon tax. That was the reason. Some might call it a deceit but nevertheless it was the reason given—a reason that we now know does not stack up, because the very rationale for it has now been swept away. We gave up private coalition opposition time in this place to help get the carbon tax debate through this chamber, to cooperate with the government to ensure that we could fully ventilate the issues in relation to the carbon tax.

And what does the government do? It simply throws that generous behaviour by the opposition back in our faces by saying, 'If you give us an extra half a day for this debate—thank you very much—we'll truncate the debate by a full week.' Everything this government does, from the 'no carbon tax' promise to the promise of an extra week in this place to debate this issue, is based on falsehoods and misleading, which is completely unacceptable to us as an opposition. That is why we will be voting against this measure by the government—because the parliamentary process deserves to be honoured.

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

The question is that the motion moved by Senator Ludwig be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [10:25]

(The President—Senator Hogg)

Question agreed to.