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

I seek leave to move a motion relating to government business.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice standing in my name, I move:

That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the consideration of the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 [No. 2] and related bills.

In moving that motion, we show yet again our resolve as a government to ensure that this Senate has the first available opportunity to rid the Australian economy, Australian households, the Australian environment and indeed Australian businesses of the blot which is the carbon tax—a carbon tax that has a perverse environmental outcome, a tax that is destroying jobs in Australia as we speak, a tax that is imposing on everybody's cost of living as we speak, a tax that Labor promised us we would never have in 2010, a tax that Kevin Rudd and Labor promised us in 2013 courtesy of this brochure they had removed. Of course that never occurred, but we are now trying to achieve it nine months after the Australian people voted for the removal of the carbon tax—a carbon tax that is that toxic that Labor promised never to introduce it and, having introduced it, said they had somehow removed it themselves.

Of course, they have not removed it. It is still on the legislative books of this nation, and each and every day that it continues to be on the legislative books of this nation the Australian people are reminded of that great deception perpetrated by the Australian Labor Party on the Australian people, not only in 2010, that they would not have a carbon tax, but also in 2013, that the carbon tax had been removed. If the carbon tax had been removed, why on earth would we need to have a discussion in this place to actually ensure its removal?

This tax ratcheted up yet again on 1 July this year, increasing the impost on households, doing further damage to our economy and—the perverseness of it all—doing further damage to the environment as more manufacturing, cleaner manufacturing, that occurs in Australia has had to go overseas. When it does, it does not operate in the environmentally sound legislative environment in which it needs to operate in Australia.

What the Australian Labor Party have been seeking to do is use the dead hand of the old Senate—the unrepresentative Senate—to reach out, stop and block discussion of this legislation so that the impost and the damage being done by the carbon tax can linger on for just that little bit longer and for that little bit more. Why on earth the Australian Labor Party would be associated with such a move I have no idea. I can understand the Greens' position. At least it is consistent—absolutely wrong, but at least it is consistent—whereas the Labor Party have flip-flopped, flip-flopped and flip-flopped so much that I do not think they actually understand what their own policy is.

We as an opposition were very firm. We said that, if we were elected, if we were given the privilege of the confidence of the Australian people, we would put up the repeal of the carbon tax as the very first item of business for the new parliament. That is exactly what we did, and the House of Representatives happened to agree with the government that the carbon tax should go. Of course, the former Senate, dominated as it was by Labor-Green senators, in their absolute resentment of the will of the Australian people on 7 September 2013 demanded that the carbon tax—which they promised would never exist and then promised they had repealed—remain.

We now have a new Senate and I say to those opposite that this is not a rushed piece of legislation. Everybody knows what this is about. It has been on the national agenda for well over three years. And it is not surprising, having said to the Australian people that the first item on our agenda would be the repeal of the carbon tax, that we should then do exactly the same with the new Senate and put it up as the first item of business for the new Senate. So I invite honourable senators on all sides, from all parties, to give due consideration to their duty to the Australian people to have this blot on the economic landscape removed. Reduce the cost of living, support Australian jobs and, to boot, support the world environment.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It says a great deal about the Abbott government that its first act on the first day of this new Senate is to look to break the Senate's rules and undermine the role of the Senate. It says a great deal about this government. This morning in the discussion that ensued post the election of the President everyone talked about the importance of the role of the Senate. The reality is that this is a government that acts like it wants Australia to be a one-party state and thinks that this should be a one-chamber parliament. The role of the Senate is not to rubber-stamp the government's legislation, to acquiesce to the government's broken promises, to wave those through or to cop it sweet when ministers fail to answer questions and refuse to account for their actions.

I do think it is worth remarking on the make-up of this Senate. Why does this Senate have a different political complexion? It is because that is what Australia voted for. An overwhelming majority of Australians did not vote for the Abbott government in the Senate. In fact, 8½ million Australians gave their first preference Senate vote to parties and senators other than coalition senators. By comparison, 4.9 million people voted for the coalition in the Senate.

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

I will take the interjections from Senator Macdonald. They remind us that he does not want a Senate that acts as a check on executive government. But that is what Australians voted for. Australians voted for a Senate which acts as a check and balance on untrammelled government power. An overwhelming majority of Australians voted for non-government parties in the Senate, and I say that is because they did not trust Mr Abbott. It is the case that we have a government that would prefer not to have a chamber that held the executive to account—but that is not the chamber that Australians voted for.

I want to turn briefly to the Senate procedure and carbon bills point. The government claims it has a mandate for these bills. That does not justify breaching the Senate's order. Even if that were the case, it does not justify breaching the Senate's standing orders to ram bills through without allowing the Senate committee processes to be concluded. Let's remember that senators previously agreed on a not unreasonably long date for a committee report—not October or the end of the year or next year, but next week. Everyone listening should understand that the government are seeking to overturn the Senate's rules, the standing orders, simply to bring forward this vote by a week, because they want a political win and they want to avoid talking about their budget of broken promises, which is a vicious attack on middle Australia and low-income Australians.

We are going to continue to follow the rules and the conventions of the Senate. I would make this point to the chamber. As Odgers' makes clear:

When a bill is referred to a committee with a fixed reporting date—

As it has been on this occasion—

and the committee reports early, the bill cannot be proceeded with until the due date, except by leave or a suspension of the standing order.

Odgers' then goes on to explain why it is that this is in the standing orders. It is in the standing orders because we want to ensure better legislation, better scrutiny of legislation and a better argument about the detail of legislation. This is the core work of the Senate—and it is not the work that the government want the senators to undertake.

Finally, I want to make a point about Senator Abetz. It is quite interesting to look at what Senator Abetz said on previous occasions about how important the Senate is, how the coalition parties would stand up for the Senate and how the coalition would use every opportunity afforded by the standing orders to make sure legislation was ventilated. I want to make this point about his argument about the carbon price. He says the carbon price destroyed the Australian economy. That is yet another lie. The carbon price did not destroy the economy. In fact, our GDP grew by about 2.5 per cent in the first year, and we saw about 155,000 new jobs created during this period. That was yet another lie from a government that was elected on a lie.

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

I rise to oppose Senator Abetz's motion to suspend standing orders in order to defy the will of the Senate. We have just had two votes in the Senate, where the majority of senators have said they want the carbon tax repeal bills dealt with separately and they do not want them brought on in contravention of a Senate decision that they will not be debated before 14 July, when the Senate committee reports. We have just had those two votes, and we have got Senator Abetz absolutely thumbing his nose at the majority in the Senate, who said that that is what they wanted to happen. As we have just seen, suddenly we have the government coming in here wanting an urgency motion for this repeal package to take precedence over all government business. If this suspension is successful, the motion would be to have the repeal package brought on and given precedence. Well, the Senate did not agree to it.

I remember when I was first elected to this place and the then Prime Minister John Howard had a majority in both houses. He treated the Senate with contempt. He changed the Senate committee procedures and made it almost impossible to get up a Senate committee investigation into anything. We went for years without being able to get a Senate inquiry into a number of issues. Now, on the very first day of the new Senate, we have Senator Abetz and the Abbott government defying the will of the Senate as has been expressed—not just once, but twice, in the two motions just voted on. The majority said that, no, they do not want to be pressed, pushed and bullied into this by the Abbott government. Just because the Prime Minister went out and said that Whyalla would be wiped off the face of the map did not mean to say it happened. It did not happen. He went out and said that an emissions trading scheme was a tax. It was never a tax. It is not a tax. It was a fixed price of an emissions trading scheme, and that remains the case.

So the wind has gone out of the sails of Senator Abetz today. He thought he could come in here and bully the new Senate into doing exactly what the government wanted. He thought he would be able to rush out there and say, 'We don't run a democracy. We're in charge. We're going to bully the Senate into doing what we said it should do.' Well, no; the Senate just voted differently. The Senate does not want these bills to take precedence over everything else, nor does it want standing orders be suspended to enable it to happen. It just voted twice to the contrary. That is what should be respected. Those votes say that those bills cannot come on before 14 July. That is how it should be.

This is a really important matter of principle for this period of government and this new Senate. If we get to the point where the government feels it can bully people into changing a vote that they have just made, that it can come over here and try to push people into doing things which they had clearly made a decision not to do, then how are we going to end up in this Senate? I come back to the fundamental point, and that is: this Senate should have the opportunity to debate these bills separately, to debate them when the Senate committee reports. The date for reporting was 14 July. During that time, we will hear from more people. Today 59 economists came out pointing out what the Prime Minister does not understand, and that is that climate change is an economic issue. Sir Nicholas Stern, a leading global economist, years ago was pointing out that the costs of acting are far less than the costs of not acting. Economists everywhere are talking about the costs of the destruction of extreme weather events and the likely changes, the idea of non-trade tariff barriers being erected around various economies and Australia being punished, the risks associated with nonaction. All of those things are economic. That is why we have President Obama wanting climate change on the G20 agenda. It is why other countries want it on the G20 agenda.

Senator Williams interjecting—

Contrary to Senator Williams's view, President Obama would love to have an emissions trading scheme, but he is blocked by the Tea Party and others who share Senator Williams's views. If it were up to President Obama, there would be an emissions trading scheme in the United States. What he has done with his policy now is to enable that at the subnational level. But do not allow this government to bully the Senate into changing its mind. We will not be suspending standing orders to allow the government to try to get around the decisions that have been made.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If there is one procedural motion that this chamber has absolutely no need to debate and that should not have been required, it is Senator Abetz's motion to seek to suspend standing orders so that he can move a motion to bring on debate on the carbon tax package of legislation. There is no matter of public policy which has been canvassed in greater detail through the media and through the course of an election campaign than the government's proposition to repeal the carbon tax. There is no public policy matter that has been examined in more detail. I do not need to remind you, Mr Acting Deputy President Gallacher, of former Prime Minister Gillard, who went to the 2010 election on a lie. She went to that election saying there would be no carbon tax under a government she led. Let me put it more diplomatically: she fibbed; she told a porky; she told one of the biggest political whoppers of all time. She, after forming government, set about to break her election commitment, to break her solemn word to the Australian people, and legislate the carbon tax.

The coalition could not have been clearer at the last election that it was our intention to repeal the carbon tax. We were elected on that. If there is one issue that is beyond any doubt, it is that the Australian public knew that, if they voted for the coalition, they were voting for the repeal of the carbon tax. Indeed, there are many colleagues in this place on the crossbenches who also went to the Australian people with the solemn commitment to seek to repeal the carbon tax. All the government is seeking to do is to give effect to the will of the Australian people as expressed in the ballot box.

The carbon tax repeal package of legislation is in fundamentally the same form as the last time it was presented to this place. The only thing that has changed since that time is that we have new Senate colleagues. We all join in welcoming them. Obviously that changes the dynamic in this place. The Australian Labor Party and the Greens fear that this chamber is on the cusp, on the verge, of giving effect to the will of the Australian people. What the Australian Labor Party and the Greens cannot abide is the possibility of not having the numbers on the floor of this place. And we have seen their outrageous behaviour in relation to the committee chaired by Senator Anne Ruston. The Environment and Communications Legislation Committee has concluded its work on this carbon tax repeal package of legislation. It is ready to report. But senators opposite are refusing to provide quorum for that committee.

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

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. Senator Fifield is misleading the chamber by saying that the opposition parties are upset about the numbers. In fact, the person who is most upset about the numbers is Senator Abetz.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order. It is a debating point.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In this place, I have never seen before a political party deny quorum to a duly constituted committee of the Australian parliament because they knew they would lose the vote on that committee. All Senator Ruston and her government colleagues want to do is to be able to report their work to this chamber so that debate can commence on the carbon tax repeal package of legislation.

The Australian Labor Party needs to understand that the Australian Senate and its committees are not like a trade union executive—you cannot play games. You cannot say, 'Hey, let's all leave the room. Let us withhold quorum so the union executive cannot exercise a vote.' This is not a trade union executive. This is not a student union where these sorts of games are played. This is the Australian Senate. The committee that Senator Ruston chairs is a duly constituted committee of the Australian Senate. The Labor Party and the Greens are seeking to prevent that committee doing its work.

The committee members have completed their work, they are ready to report, and those opposite should provide quorum to allow that to happen. We are having this procedural debate today because of the games that Labor and the Greens are playing. We are having this procedural debate so that we can do something very straightforward—that is, actually to commence the debate on the carbon tax repeal package of legislation. We want to debate. We want to canvass the issues. We want to talk about this. Yet the opposition and the Australian Greens are seeking to deny the Senate that opportunity through their tawdry behaviour on the environment committee of the Senate.

This motion to suspend standing orders should not be required. Sadly, it is. It should be supported.

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to vote against Senator Abetz's suspension motion and to make it very clear that the Senate is a house of review. It is different from the other place because we do scrutinise and review legislation. For the senators to do their job effectively, that has to happen through its committee process. The Environment and Communications Legislation Committee is due to table its report on those bills on 14 July. That date has been set by the Senate. That has been set because that committee wanted time to scrutinise those bills. It actually wanted to go further and hear from the experts—but that, I understand, was not allowed. That would have given the further scrutiny required when we are looking at debating these incredibly important bills that are going to be brought before this chamber. Yet that has not occurred. Why is that? Because that fits again around this framework that this government operates—that is, a framework of secrecy. It does not allow for the committee to hear from environmental scientists, experts, professionals in their field—who know a lot more than Senator Scullion and a number of government senators, and opposition senators, when it comes to climate science—the reasons why it is important to have a price on carbon pollution.

Labor's position on this has been very clear: we accept the science on climate change and, in doing so, we accept that we need to do something about it. Our position is an emissions trading scheme. That is the most efficient and effective way to do something about carbon pollution in this country—as it has been going on throughout the rest of the world.

As Labor's spokesperson for the environment and climate change in this chamber, I am pleased to say that Labor very much supports an emissions trading scheme going forward. It will continue to be our policy, because we want to tackle climate change in the most effective way possible—that is, through an emissions trading scheme. It is time that the government senators in this place start listening to the scientists, start listening to evidence based research which says that we need to do something to tackle climate change. And, if that is not good enough, listen to the 59 economists who today have said that we need to put a price on carbon pollution and do something about ensuring that the carbon pollution that is produced in this country for our future generations has a limit, a legal cap, on it. That is what an emissions trading scheme would do, and that is why we support it.

Debate interrupted.