Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Employment (Senator Abetz) to questions without notice asked by Senators Conroy and Singh today relating to the proposed repeal of the carbon tax.

Senator Abetz should think back to what happened for the coalition back in 2001, when the former Liberal president, Shane Stone, described the coalition as 'mean, tricky and nasty'. What I would be putting to the Palmer United Party is that nothing has changed since 2001—absolutely nothing. And if any of you are surprised that the coalition would be mean, tricky and nasty, then you have not thought about the history of this Liberal Party in this country. Shane Stone not only said in 2001 that the Liberals were mean, tricky and nasty; he also said that they were 'dysfunctional' and 'out of touch with the Liberal base'. He went on and said that they were not listening to the Liberal base and they had to be dragged screaming to fix mistakes.

I think the PUP know that that last point, about having to be dragged screaming to fix a mistake, is quite clearly their experience of last Thursday when this Senate descended into the most dysfunctional Senate that we have seen for many, many years in this place. The Prime Minister said, 'We have got situation normal.' Well, I do not know what was normal about last Thursday. When I had a look around, we had coalition negotiators running around here like chooks with their heads cut off—quite clearly running around the place not knowing what was going on, having completely lost control of the Senate. We had the coalition senators after the debate in what was described to me as a 'catatonic state'. I was not sure quite what a catatonic state was, but it is described in the dictionary as 'muscular rigidity and mental stupor'. Well, there was clearly a catatonic state amongst the coalition senators last Thursday! As to what happened, you see it time and time again here in question time: you see Senator Abetz blaming the Labor Party for all of the problems in this country. He blames everyone else. They do not blame themselves. So what did they do with the PUP? They blamed the catastrophic failure of the coalition leadership in this place to be able to negotiate their bill through the Senate on the inexperience of the new senators. So they immediately went to the blame game—they blamed the new senators.

Then we had Senator Lambie blame Senator Abetz. She said: 'The crossbench will make him pay for his silly games.' So, quite clearly, Senator Abetz was out there playing silly games. Senator Lambie also came out and said to the Prime Minister, 'You should sack Senator Abetz immediately.'

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

Very sound advice!

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

'Sound advice' says Senator Abetz—well, maybe Mr Abbott, the Prime Minister, will carry it through, given that Senator Abetz is saying that that is sound advice!

Then Senator Lambie went on to say: 'I think they are disgraceful. They need to put someone up there who has communication skills and is not prepared to try and trick you, because that is not the way forward.' Can I say to Senator Lambie: I know you are new in here, but you should learn very quickly about Senator Abetz; you got him in one, and you have certainly belled the cat in relation to Senator Abetz. What you said was: 'We tried to give him a little bit of trust, and they have blown it out of the water. So I guess it is just open slather.' But why would you think that Senator Abetz would do anything other than mislead you? It was a political shambles. It was arrogance and incompetence. They sought to put the guillotine in and then they tried to filibuster their own guillotine. This was a pathetic performance by the coalition, and I think it epitomises everything that is wrong with this government. It is about a government that lied its way to power. It is a government that would lie to other senators. It is a government that would mislead senators as they misled the country. (Time expired)

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Whatever else you say about me, I am not catatonic! So I thank Senator Cameron for his contribution, and I might confine my contribution to Senator Singh's question. As Senator Abetz said in his excellent opening answer in question time today, 66 out of the 76 senators elected to this place were elected on the basis of 'no carbon tax'. Yet here we are, seemingly in a parallel universe, still debating the same issue, after all this time. You talk about legislative mandates—and perhaps that is thrown about a bit too much in this place. But if there has ever been a legislative mandate in the time I have been in this parliament, it is to repeal the carbon tax. Even today The Australian on the front page had a survey: again, the vast majority of Australians say 'Get rid of the carbon tax.'

Why? Fundamentally, the carbon tax will not lower global temperatures but it will lead to higher costs for Australian industry and Australian consumers and will make for a less competitive economy. That is why we have had this debate between the coalition, the Greens and the Labor Party over the last eight or nine years.

To summarise: Labor and the Greens lost, and the coalition and the Australian public won. This tax will go. Any impost of $9,000 million to the economy coming from a carbon tax has to go. This is at a time with escalating public debt—a public debt trap left by the Labor Party after their six years in office—skyrocketing public debt and, at the same time, they are opposing getting rid of the carbon tax, which makes is harder for Australian industry. The hypocrisy and the lack of responsibility is absolutely breathtaking.

I saw last Friday a quote in the editorial in The Australian from Dr Martin Parkinson who, as you know, is the Secretary of the Treasury. He said that if we remain on this public debt trajectory, Australia will be in inevitable decline. That is a fact, and yet this lot want to make it harder to get rid of the carbon tax. That is pretty sensible, isn't it? Only the Australian Labor Party would do that.

The entire genesis of Labor's failure to deal with carbon policy goes right back to the moral vanity of Kevin Rudd. If he had not been so stupid and so morally vain as to seek to impose on this country—my country—before anywhere else in the world an ETS, we would not be in this ridiculous situation that we are in now. He was far more concerned with running around with Al Gore and Ban Ki-moon all those years ago than he ever was about sensible carbon policy. It is the most disgraceful, self-centred and morally vain performance by a Prime Minister in my time. I have never seen anything like it, and it was pathetic. He so skewed public debate in this country that he we are right now still debating this issue.

The politics of photo opportunity and moral vanity took over from sensible public policy. It was absolutely pathetic and that should be engraved on the tombstone of Kevin Rudd's political career—the absolute moral vanity to commit Australia to an ETS prior to the Copenhagen climate change conference, and that act of political bastardry has set this nation on this course over the last six years. It is a disgrace, and we should never, ever forget the genesis of this entire debate. I certainly will never let the Labor Party or Kevin Rudd forget it.

In the end, if it was such a good idea, we would have all those other countries, those resource-rich countries, those trade exposed countries like Brazil, Russia, India, China, the United States and Canada in favour. Not one of them has made a commitment in the last seven years. Why would that be? Because they know it is not in their national interest, and this lot hate that they have not been able to sell the fact that this policy is in the national interest because it is not. It harms our national interest and it is a disgrace that they still oppose the carbon tax. (Time expired)

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Rarely have I heard a Senate contribution so lacking in insight as the one I have just heard from Senator Mason. I am going to approach this debate a little differently: I am going to be rational, because nobody can pretend that managing this Senate chamber is easy. As the Manager of Government Business for the majority of the life of the Keating government and also as Leader of the Opposition in the Senate for the best part of a decade, I know this as well as anybody who sits in this chamber.

It is true: we now have a higher proportion of crossbenchers than at any time since 1910. I have got to be honest—and I am disappointed to say this—and I should acknowledge that the Australian Labor Party's representation is at the lowest proportion of Labor senators we have seen since 1938. I do not pretend it is easy for anyone—the government, the opposition, the minor parties or the Independents—to fulfil their chamber management responsibilities. But the principles of chamber management are clear, and we have known them for a very long time.

Much of the negotiation in this chamber of course has to happen off the floor and, in that negotiation, a government has to be clear. It has to be forthright. It has to be frank and straightforward in what it says and what it puts to all non-government senators. A government cannot afford to engage in trickery, shenanigans or double-dealing in this place.

This means that any motion or amendment that the government wants to put to the chamber it has to provide with adequate notice to every non-government senator. It must fairly and openly share information with all parties. The government of course also should use all the resources it has at its disposal, particularly with the advantages of incumbency from agencies and the Office of Parliamentary Counsel who are expert in drafting amendments so they can meet all the technical and legal requirements of amendments.

I would have more respect for the coalition minister who apparently described the new senator as 'stark raving mad' if instead of saying it to a journalist that they had said to them. I would have more respect for a minister if they said an amendment was 'crazy, crazy, crazy' if they were to say it directly to the chamber. I would also strongly suggest that a government should never waste time by moving procedural motions when it does not have the numbers to pass them or, if it does have the numbers to pass them, then finds its own proposal unhelpful to its own management. Of course, that is what happened last week.

What we saw last week was the government move and lose two procedural motions on Monday as well as have a suspension of standing orders motion lapse before question time that day. They lost a motion to have the package of carbon bills declared urgent on the Wednesday and had eight carbon price repeal bills and schedule 5 of the clean energy legislation repealed negatived. This is the worst, most amateurish and ham-fisted chamber management I have seen since I have been here.

But, as I said, I do not want to be like Senator Mason; I would like to finish my contribution on a positive note. So, finally, let me say this: we are lucky that the Senate Clerk's office provides such a professional and impartial service to all senators—government, opposition, minor parties and Independents in this place, because I would say that without their integrity we would be lost.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Of course, I add my remarks in support of what Senator Faulkner said at the very end of his speech. And I am sure that other senators will join me in acknowledging the great work that the Clerk and the Clerk's office do for this Senate and for this parliament as a whole.

Senator Cameron started his contribution by talking a little bit about 'catatonic'. For those who missed the word, 'catatonic' was first described in 1874, if I remember correctly. He used the word 'catatonic', which is a state of neurogenic motor immobility and behavioural abnormality manifested by stupor to describe the actions of some people in this place. I prefer to use the psychological expression 'state of denial'.

'State of denial' was first used by Sigmund Freud and it describes someone or something—or some people, I am sure—who refuses to accept the truth. It is a phrase used to describe a person who is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it, instead insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence.

So let us just cast our minds back to post September last year—

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you describing your budget?

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You will enjoy this Senator Bilyk; please let me finish in the time I have available to me.

What did Labor members say following the September 2013 election? What did the Labor member for Wakefield, Mr Nick Champion, say? He said in an interview on ABC radio's AM program on 11 September 2013 with regard to the carbon tax:

I don't see why the Labor Party should necessarily stay wedded to this concept when everybody else has walked away from it in one form or another.

That is what the Labor member for Wakefield said immediately following the federal election.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why are you wedded to your budget? Everybody else isn't!

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Bilyk, I can accept that one comment from one Labor member may not be enough. So let me give you another. Let me give you the comments of Mr Richard Marles, the member for Corio, on 12 September. He was reported in the West Australian newspaper—very reliable journal that it is. He said that Labor needed to choose its battles carefully, and:

We do need to acknowledge the fact that Tony Abbott won the election and we lost, …

Of course, some Labor senators might prefer to hear from former Labor members—indeed, former Labor premiers. So I might share with you what Bob Carr had to say some years ago about the electorally-sensitive matter of political mandates. What did Bob Carr have to say? He was talking on Channel 9 in 1998 about the Howard government—their re-election and the importance of their mandate.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why not go back to the 1800s again?

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Would you like to listen to what former Labor senator and Labor premier, Bob Carr, had to say? Mr Carr said:

My view is that a government with a majority in any lower house ought to be able to implement its program not subject to frustration by an upper house, …

That is what Labor senator, Bob Carr, had to say.

What we have seen since September 2013 is a perpetual state of denial by most Labor members and, indeed, all Labor senators. And I think it is just worth reflecting on what was happening one year ago today. I would just like to talk about an article in the Sunday Telegraph. It was headlined 'Carbon tax to go as Rudd eyes poll'. This was Sunday, 14 July 2013—12 months ago. The article goes on to say:

Kevin Rudd, planning to abandon the carbon tax.

What we had yesterday was not criticism of Independent and minor party senators; it was a criticism of the Labor Party and its decision to stand in the way of repealing the carbon tax. Let's be clear: the coalition is critical of Labor senators who in one breath say that they will repeal the carbon tax and in another breath say that they will keep the carbon tax. Labor in the Senate is operating in a state of denial and it is now time to reflect the proper mandate of this government, demonstrated by its overwhelming election at the polls in September 2013. The time is right to repeal the carbon tax; to free Australian businesses and to allow jobs to be created. (Time expired)

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

I also rise to take note of answers to questions I and Senator Conroy asked of Senator Abetz. I start by speaking in support of Senator Cameron's remarks on this debate, when he outlined Shane Stone's comments on the coalition as being mean, tricky and nasty; nothing has changed, as Senator Cameron noted.

I also rise to support Senator Faulkner's comments on the principles of chamber management. What we saw last week from the government was the trampling of the Senate's principles of chamber management and, through that, the lack of government authority in this place. We did not see the sort of adult government that the Prime Minister had outlined—

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Promised!

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

had promised he would deliver under his leadership. We saw the absolute contrary: we saw a childish government, in so much as there was certainly no authority in the government. Then we saw the name-calling—which has been reported in the media—by coalition ministers, senators and representatives, based on the fact that they could not get their way and therefore could not manage the standard of parliamentary business that was expected of them; they resorted to the tactic of calling those new senators names. If that was anything like adult, then I do not know what adult is—because that was certainly schoolyard behaviour to me. That was childish behaviour in the first degree.

What we also saw last week, throughout all of these chaotic shenanigans that were going on on the government benches, was a government that actually did not care about the policy at hand. That started early on in the week. That started when, on Monday, the government tried to force through the Senate the debate on the repeal bills immediately, even though it was clear the government knew that the Senate committee report into those bills was not due for another week. After breaching those rules and failing in its first attempt, the government eventually persuaded enough crossbenchers to suspend standing orders and bring on debate immediately. Labor senators spent the week advocating our policy of moving from a fixed carbon price to an emissions trading scheme that would put a cap on Australia's greenhouse gas emissions. That was the policy at hand. That was what was important to the debate. But during the second reading debate on those bills on Tuesday, Labor made it very clear that we would be moving amendments to seek to move to an emissions trading scheme—something not supported by the government.

The coalition then spent the week trying to repeal carbon pricing, to leave Australia with no serious policy to tackle climate change. I asked Senator Abetz today, in relation to the price pass-through mechanism, questions about consultation. He clearly did not give any answer as to whether the government's price pass-through mechanisms have actually been consulted on at large. Instead, he tried to play politics with that answer.

I then further tried to ask whether the proposed pass-through laws would only apply to electricity and energy suppliers and not to grocery and other major retailers. Again, there was an unclear answer—if it was any answer at all—from Senator Abetz. I know that in the other place today, similarly, there was a lack of an answer from the member for Sydney when the question was asked of the Prime Minister; he failed to guarantee that grocery prices would fall.

There has been a complete disregard today for providing answers, to the Senate and to the Australian community, about what the government is going to put on the table when it comes to the amended repeal bills that will be presented to this place this week. Instead, we could almost expect to end up with another chaotic shambles like we had last week. That is something that is still on the table. We all know where that ended up last week: with Thursday's farce, when we saw a humiliating defeat for the Prime Minister as the government's bullying turned into a debacle when the government finally secured its deal with the crossbenchers to impose a guillotine. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Employment (Senator Abetz) to a question without notice asked by Senator Milne today relating to the proposed repeal of the carbon tax.

We have had so many lies told around Australia about the impact of carbon pricing. We had the Minister for Agriculture, Barnaby Joyce, telling people that a lamb roast would be $100 more. We had the Prime Minister telling the people of Whyalla that they would be wiped off the face of the earth. We had the Prime Minister telling people that building a new home would cost $6,000 less if the carbon price goes. I asked Senator Abetz today where this $550 figure comes from; it comes from Treasury modelling, and the Treasury modelling included $250 for food, clothing and rent. None of those things—none of them—are captured by the government's pass-through provisions: that is, there will be no requirement for anyone selling food and clothing or renting a property to talk about the impact of carbon pricing or otherwise. And if anyone is deluded enough to think that food prices are suddenly going to go down, or rent is going to go down, or clothes are going to get cheaper, then they need to really look at this situation because it is just not true.

The reality here is: people are not going to save money. They are, in fact, going to be a lot worse off. I want to put to the Senate that this goes particularly to the issue of the value of homes and the value of insurance. Already Choice has brought out a report this year, Buyer beware: home insurance, extreme weather and climate change, which points out a number of high-risk locations around Australia where insurance is already unavailable or unaffordable. In places like Roma, for example, it is practically impossible to afford insurance. Around Australia, anywhere that is subject to storm surge, extreme weather events, or more extreme fires, people are struggling to be able to get home insurance, and that means that there is a revaluation of their assets happening right now based on climate risk.

People are being told they are going to be better off, but you have Woolworths saying: 'No, conveniently, we didn't actually price any increase on food into our prices in our supermarkets. Therefore, there will be no cheaper prices because we didn't put it through in the first place.' Qantas are also out there saying: 'Yes, we put on a fuel excise but now we've taken it off. We're not passing it on to passengers because actually we absorbed it ourselves.' Part of the reason that Qantas and Virgin have been in this downward spiral of pricing is that they both absorbed any costs themselves, and so it is not going to be passed through to passengers. They are going to pay exactly the same as they are paying now, if not more, as time goes on.

So all of this talk about cost savings is just a complete nonsense, and it is just outrageous in Australia that people have been told so many lies. I refer to one business in particular: Frozpak in Canberra. The Prime Minister went there with the now Minister for the Environment, Mr Hunt—he was in opposition at the time—and they stood there and said, 'This business will incur a $60,000 increase in costs because of carbon pricing in one year.' And a large percentage of that was because of synthetic greenhouse gases, apparently. Now, however, we find that that business is unlikely to incur any penalty. It is one of the areas that will not have penalties. It is only suppliers of electricity and gas that will be subject to the penalties in the Palmer amendments, it would seem, and that does not include that particular business.

But I am sure everybody will look at all of the businesses that Mr Abbott went to where he said that they would incur increases in prices like $60,000. It will be interesting to see how that business explains to its customers why it cannot pass on anything like $60,000. These absolutely exaggerated and ridiculous claims were made by the Prime Minister, and the $550 is going to turn out to be another lie. It will be another broken promise. I can tell you, people from around Australia will be sending an invoice to the Prime Minister's office saying, 'Where is my $550, Mr Prime Minister?'

Question agreed to.