Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share 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—