Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay—Leader of The Nationals) (13:52): I rise to respond to the Navigation Amendment Bill 2011. This bill implements two entirely different measures, which I will speak to separately. The first, schedule 1 part 1 of the bill, implements the Maritime Labour Conventionin Australia. The MLC was adopted by the International Labour Organisation in February 2006 and establishes minimum requirements for working and living conditions for seafarers working on ships engaged in commercial activities. The MLC consolidates and updates 68 existing agreements and sets minimum requirements for seafarers to work on a ship to ensure that they are medically fit, of appropriate age and have access to a regulated recruitment and placement system.

Importantly, the MLC addresses various conditions of employment for seafarers, to ensure that they have a fair employment agreement and are paid; have regulated hours of work and rest; have adequate leave, are able to return home and are compensated when a ship is lost; work on board ships with sufficient personnel, with safe, efficient and secure operation of the ship; have decent accommodation, food and drinking water provided under hygienic conditions; and have access to medical services on board and ashore.

The MLC will come into force in international law 12 months after the date on which it has been ratified by 30 ILO members with a total share of the world's gross tonnage of ships of 33 per cent. Countries with over 50 per cent of the global tonnage have already ratified the MLC, with the most populous flag states, such as Panama, Liberia and the Marshall Islands, already completing the ratification process. However, at this point, 30 ILO member countries have not ratified—in fact, to date it is only about half that many. However, it is my understanding, from consultation with industry stakeholders, that a number of other countries, including China, Japan and the member states of the European Union, are actively pursuing ratification, and it is believed that the MLC will reach the 30 member state requirement by the end of this year.

The implications for Australian shipping should the MLC come into force and Australia not have ratified its provisions are significant, and for that reason the coalition will not oppose the bill. But when a Labor government implements changes to labour arrangements on ships, everyone has good reason to be suspicious. Sweetheart deals and union thuggery over the years have delivered an Australian shipping industry which has been uncompetitive and in decline. There are now only 22 Australian-flagged ships left. In spite of the important role that shipping can play in both domestic freight and as a national carrier in our international trade, our shipping industry has been in steady decline.

It is, in my view, important that we express our confidence in the Australian industry and do what we can to make it return to competitiveness. That is especially important as our national freight task grows. Every time a ship retires from service or is not replaced it means more trucks on the road. So, in my view, if we had ships better servicing our capital cities, it would take pressure off the national highway system, and that would have major national advantages. I am concerned that this legislation, the government's carbon tax and its announcements about shipping changes last week do not hasten the demise of the Australian shipping industry and leave our nation's volume exports more exposed to low-priced competition.

The bill will remove inconsistencies between the MLC and the Navigation Act and will provide for the issue of declarations of maritime labour compliance and maritime labour certificates to Australian ships. In Australia, the MLC will apply to Australian ships of 200 gross tonnes and over, whether on domestic or international voyages. However, the requirement to carry documentation as evidence of compliance with the MLC applies only to ships of 500 tonnes and over engaged in voyages to or from ports outside their country of registration. The declaration of the maritime labour compliance certificate will list the requirements that must be met by a particular ship to meet the standards set out in the MLC and will list the proposed measures that must be undertaken by the shipowner for initial and ongoing compliance with the MLC.

The maritime labour certificate will be issued after the ship has been inspected and found to meet the requirements of the MLC. They will be subject to periodic evaluation and will last a maximum of five years before they must be renewed. The bill also establishes an inspection regime whereby all ships in Australian ports will be inspected by surveyors employed by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority to ensure that the ships comply with the requirements of the MLC. AMSA will undertake inspections of foreign ships at Australian ports during routine port state control inspections to ensure compliance with the MLC. But ships carrying out the relevant certifications are considered to have prima facie evidence of compliance with the MLC. Australian ships will be subjected to the same requirements at foreign ports that are party to the MLC.

Australian law and practice generally already comply with the MLC, which means that ratification should have a relatively low regulatory and cost impact on the Australian shipping industry in order to comply. However, if Australia fails to ratify the MLC and it does come into force as expected, Australian ships in foreign ports could experience significant delays due to the extensive inspection requirements imposed on ships not carrying appropriate documentation. This would only occur in ports in countries that have ratified the MLC. Should Australia not ratify the MLC, ships would encounter delays at the ports of some of our major trading partners—for example, both China and Japan have indicated that they will be pursuing ratification. This would hinder our export business and could potentially make Australia a less attractive trading partner.

The SPEAKER: Order! It being 2 pm the debate is interrupted. The member will have leave to continue his contribution when the debate is resumed.

Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:00): I move:

That the House express its deep regret at the death on 13 September 2011 of the Hon. David Francis Jull, a member of this House for the Divisions of Bowman and Fadden from 1975 to 2007 and Minister for Administrative Services, and place on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service, and tender its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement.

Members were saddened to learn today of the death of David Jull, a member of this House of very long standing, and a friend to many in this place on both sides of the parliament.

David Jull was born in October 1944 in a place fabled in Australian politics: Kingaroy. He was a Liberal and a lifelong member of the Liberal family. I know that the Leader of the Opposition will make some remarks on behalf of the Liberal family today. First elected in 1975 as a young MP, only the Hawke juggernaut of 1983 could deny him victory in elections. He was elected 11 times to this parliament, retiring just four years ago in 2007. He gave good years of service to the committees of this parliament, both to the House and to the parliament's joint committees. Most especially he served on committees for foreign affairs, defence and trade and intelligence and security. Many members in the parliament today would have worked alongside him on those parliamentary committees. As a minister David Jull experienced what Hasluck called 'the chance of politics', but he remained a faithful servant of the Howard government through the whole of its four terms.

David suffered ill health while still here, and I am sure we all remember that. Many friends of his on both sides of the House shared his great relief, and his family's great relief, at overcoming the cancer which he suffered in 2005. After 30 years of public service I am sure that he and his loved ones hoped for a much longer retirement than just four years.

On behalf of the government I offer my condolences and the government's condolences to his family, his friends and his former colleagues on this day

Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (14:03): I think all members of parliament were shocked and saddened to hear of the death earlier this morning of our friend and former colleague David Jull. I thank the Prime Minister for her gracious words of appreciation for his life and service.

David was the member for Bowman in this place from 1975 to 1983. After a brief interruption he was the member for Fadden from 1984 to 2007. When he left the parliament he was the fourth longest serving member of this parliament. In some respects, but not in all, the highlight of his public life was his service in 1996 and 1997 as Minister for Administrative Services. In those days this was a large and complex portfolio dealing with the multifarious operations of government. As a minister in a cost-cutting government, David was required to find savings and he used to tell the story that in those days any government driver who was on the road for more than seven hours was apparently entitled to a new pair of pyjamas at the taxpayers' expense. David rescinded this edict, but he never wanted to say how government drivers subsequently slept.

He was always disappointed never to have been minister for tourism, because tourism was his great love. He was a former deputy manager of the Queensland Tourism Corporation, but the fact that he was never the minister did not stop him from providing copious, welcome and helpful travel tips to all of his colleagues who sought them.

He did not languish in the parliament after leaving the ministry. For a decade from 1997 to 2007 he was the chairman of the ASIO committee, subsequently the intelligence and security committee. He chaired this committee during a tumultuous time for our country, a time when the security and intelligence services necessarily expanded massively to cope with the threats subsequent to September 11, and the war on terrorism. The fact that Australia has avoided any direct terrorist outrages in this country over this difficult period is in some way a credit to his good work as chairman of this committee.

David was a gentleman member of this parliament in every sense. He had a great temperament. He was, for instance, never bitter about the circumstances of his leaving the ministry, although many in similar circumstances would have been. He was great company, particularly when he had a cigarette in his hand—as he did perhaps more often than was good for him. Above all else, he had great judgment. He said back in 2007 that he entered parliament after 'the nation was absolutely wrecked by Whitlam, and I leave it during a tremendous John Howard-led period'. What wise words. It has been a lesser parliament since he left. On behalf of the coalition, I mourn his passing. I offer deepest condolences to his former wife, Erica, to Jay and Michael Goldman, to his sister, Gwen, to his brother, Peter, and to Peter's sons, Stephen and Andrew. We will miss him. He made a great contribution.

The SPEAKER (14:07): I join the Prime Minister and that Leader of the Opposition in expressing my condolences to the family of David Jull. I think that Jully left this place a friend of all, no matter what their political persuasion. When I say 'all', he left as a friend of all of those that worked in this place. I do not think that there would have been a Comcar driver that regretted the pyjama story. It is hard to believe that no longer will an aircraft registration number be put into his travel diary. On behalf of all members who have not spoken, but will perhaps get an opportunity to do so later, I express my condolences to his family and friends. As a mark of respect, I invite members to signify their approval by rising in their places.

Honourable members having stood in their places—

Debate adjourned.

Mr MORRISON (Cook) (14:30): Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table the press release from Senator Evans of 8 February 2008. It contains the facts that the Prime Minister seeks to spin away.

Leave not granted.

Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (15:28): Mr Speaker, I seek brief indulgence to say something that I would have liked to have said earlier today in question time.

Mr Albanese interjecting—

The SPEAKER: Order! I am sorry, Leader of the House; indulgence is in the hands of the Speaker. I grant the Leader of the Opposition a brief indulgence.

Mr ABBOTT: I entirely accept your admonition, Mr Speaker. I say on behalf of the coalition that we warmly welcome the visit to Australia of President Obama. President Obama is the leader of the free world. He should always be welcome in this country and he will always be welcome as far as the coalition is concerned.

The SPEAKER (15:29): I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The failure of the government to maintain an effective border protection policy.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (15:29): What an extraordinary performance we have seen from the Prime Minister today. The Prime Minister of this country is demanding that someone who is alternately a 'precious petal' and someone who is a person of 'monstrous arrogance' should help her out of a problem of her own making. Let me say this: it is not the opposition's job to support bad policy from a bad government. It is not the opposition's job to save the government from a mess of its own making when there is an alternative, and when that alternative has been proven to work.

I am not so inclined under the circumstances of today's performance by this Prime Minister to rescue her from her own difficulties. It is not the job of the coalition and it is not the job of the opposition to rescue a failed and failing government. It is interesting that the first sign of discomfort from this Prime Minister—the first sign of gracelessness from this Prime Minister, whose every day in this place betrays a bearing unworthy of the high office she holds—was when she started talking about the visit to this country of President Obama. Let me make it absolutely crystal clear that the coalition welcomes the visit to this country of President Obama. We will always welcome a visit to this country by the President of the United States. The big question is: will this Prime Minister be around to welcome the President of the United States when he gets here?

The coalition has a very, very clear policy. It is a policy that has been proven to work. Our policy, in a nutshell, is offshore processing at Nauru, it is temporary protection visas and it is the option of turning boats around where that can safely be done. Our policy is a policy that has been shown to work.

It did work. It did work in the past; it can work and it will work in the future. When the coalition's policy was put into practice by the former government between 2002 and 2007 we averaged just three boats a year in this country. Just three boats a year! Since that policy was junked by members opposite, led by the former Prime Minister and the current Prime Minister, we have had at some stages no fewer than three boats a week. Three boats a year under the coalition's policy and three boats a week under the government's policy. I say to the government: go back to the policy that worked. Drop the stubbornness, forget the pride, drop the 'anywhere but Nauru' policy and go back to the policy that worked. If you had any respect for the welfare of our country, if you had any respect for the safety of boat people and if you had any concern to preserve good relations with our neighbours you would go back to the policy that worked. That is what members opposite should do.

The Prime Minister used to delight—when she had another job, and in another time—in putting out press releases. The press releases were invariably headed 'another boat, another policy failure'. There were not very many press releases, I can tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, because there were not very many boats. Since this government and this Prime Minister changed the policy there have been 240 policy failures; 240 boats and more than 12,000 illegal arrivals in this country—all the fault of this government.

It is all the fault of this government because this government was not magnanimous enough to leave well enough alone. All the riots in detention centres and all the terrible tragedies that we have seen have arisen because this government was too arrogant, too proud and too stubborn to accept that its predecessors had it right. This is a disgraceful government—a really disgraceful government—and nothing better illustrates that than the squirming that we see from them now.

What have we seen from this government? We have seen a government find a solution and create a problem. We hear constantly from this Prime Minister the demand—she says she is asking—that the coalition adopt a particular policy. The Prime Minister is abusing us to adopt a particular policy. If she wants a bit of cooperation, what about facing up to some facts? The only reason the people smugglers have a business model is that this government created it. This government created the people-smuggler model when it abolished temporary protection visas and dismantled the Pacific solution.

The Prime Minister constantly says, 'Take the expert advice'. I have two responses to this: what did the experts say to her before the High Court decision? What advice did she get before the High Court decision? If she was following expert advice, the expert advice turned out to be not very expert. The other question I have for the Prime Minister is: what did she do with the expert advice, that she was given repeatedly in 2008, that to dismantle the Pacific solution would put the people smugglers back in business? Why did the Prime Minister and her former prime ministerial colleague the now foreign minister, completely ignore the expert advice at this time?

What we have seen from this government is complacency followed by panic. First of all we had the processing freeze which just caused the numbers in detention to go up and up and up. Then we had the lurch to the right that the former prime minister so presciently warned us about. Shortly after the member for Lindsay's jaunt round Darwin Harbour on a patrol boat, we had the East Timor solution—the solution that got lost somewhere in the Timor Sea. Then we had the Manus solution, a solution that was announced before it had been negotiated and which has never come to pass, followed by the Malaysian solution.

Let me say of the so-called Malaysian solution that yet again from this government we have had bad policy based on a lie. It is so typical of this government that we have had bad policy based on a lie—whether it is a carbon tax, whether it is boat people—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. Peter Slipper ): Order! The Leader of the Opposition will withdraw the word 'lie'.

Mr ABBOTT: Bad policy based on a deception. Mr Deputy Speaker, you may care to listen to and mark these words of the Prime Minister spoken on 8 July last year, in the middle of the election campaign:

I would rule out anywhere that is not a signatory to the Refugee Convention.

I am not going to call that a lie, Mr Deputy Speaker, but it was certainly a gross deception—yet another gross deception. Now this Prime Minister wants the coalition to connive at a policy based on gross deception. We will not connive at policies based on gross deception.

The Malaysia people swap is a thoroughly bad policy. What sensible government would go to another country and do a five-for-one deal? What decent government would send boat people to a country where they could be exposed to caning? Malaysia is a friend of Australia, but their standards are not our standards, and it is very wrong of Australia to send people who have come into our care, however briefly, to a country whose standards are so different from ours. Most of all, it is a policy that just does not work, has not worked and will not work. Look at the facts: this so-called deterrent has not deterred 1,000 illegal boat people from arriving on our shores since it was first announced. Four hundred have arrived since it was signed. Why should the coalition consider supporting a policy which has so comprehensively failed?

Malaysia is a proven failure. Nauru is a proven success. Let us be crystal clear: this is a Prime Minister who came into this House and did not tell a lie, but did say something that was grievously untrue. She came into this House yesterday and said 90 per cent of those who went to Nauru ended up in Australia. Wrong, wrong, wrong, Prime Minister. If you cannot get your facts right in this House, how can we expect you to get your policy right for the country? Some 1,500 people went to Nauru under the Pacific solution. Fully 30 per cent of them were repatriated to their home countries, 27 per cent went to countries other than Australia and only 43 per cent came to Australia. Some of them came to Australia after a very long wait in Nauru and that is why, in conjunction with other policies, it was such an effective deterrent.

This Prime Minister just cannot help herself. There is almost nothing that this Prime Minister says which is consistent with what she has previously said. She was against offshore processing: it was 'costly, unsustainable and wrong in principle'. Now we must not have offshore processing but offshore dumping, because that is what will happen to the people that she wants to send to Malaysia. Back in 2002 she actually supported turning boats around. She said:

The navy has turned back four boats to Indonesia. They were in sea-worthy shape and arrived in Indonesia. It has made a very big difference …

Last year she said:

… 'turn the boats back'. This needs to be seen for what it is. It's a shallow slogan. It's nonsense.

She supported turning boats around, she opposed turning boats around, but it is okay. Now she supports a virtual turnaround of boats. Just as Al Gore invented the internet: whatever policy she wants, she invented it.

First of all she supported temporary protection visas. Back in 2002, Labor's policy was that an unauthorised arrival with a genuine refugee claim would in the first instance get a short temporary protection visa. At the beginning of last year she said, 'The Rudd government is proud of its reforms in abolishing temporary protection visas and in closing the so-called Pacific solution,'—which, at least in respect of Mannus, she wants to resurrect.

The Prime Minister was ferociously against more onshore detention centres during the election campaign. Since the election, in the absence of the BER, the only thing that she wants to build is onshore detention centres. Of course, we were never ever under any circumstances going to send boat people to countries that had not signed the UN refugee convention, but now she cannot wait to get people forced onto planes and off them in Malaysia, a country that has not signed.

This is a floundering, desperate Prime Minister at the head of a divided and directionless government. It is her responsibility to get her legislation through this parliament. She is the government.

Mr Danby: What about the national interest?

Honourable members interjecting—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Melbourne Ports will remain silent, as will members on my left.

Mr ABBOTT: She should appeal to the other members of her government to support her. That is what she should do. If she is incapable of getting the members of her government to support her and if she is incapable of getting this government to get its legislation through the parliament, there are other options that are open to her and she should take them. I repeat, our responsibility is to support good policy. That is what we will do. Good policy is Nauru, temporary protection visas and turning boats around. That is the policy this government should adopt. (Time expired)

Mr Danby interjecting —

Mr Secker: I request that the member for Melbourne Ports withdraw his comment.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I did not hear the comment, but the honourable member would assist the chamber were he to do so.

Mr Danby: I withdraw.

Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton—Minister for Privacy and Freedom of Information, Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Justice) (15:45): I rise to oppose the assertions made by the Leader of the Opposition that this government is not strong on border protection. Indeed, it is a high priority of this government. That is why we dedicate more resources than ever before to ensuring that our borders are protected. That is why, for example, in relation to irregular maritime arrivals, we have interdicted vessels more successfully. There have been far fewer mainland arrivals that went undetected under this government compared with the Howard government. Almost one in 10 irregular maritime arrivals landed on the mainland of this country under the Howard government. They landed in places like Darwin or near Cairns. In fact, even the state of New South Wales received vessels undetected under the Howard government's regime. I have to say, in defence of Customs and Border Protection and those great agencies that do such great work for this country, that they have indeed managed this issue very well.

Of course it is true to say that we are dealing with a significant challenge—a challenge that also confronted the Howard government and the Fraser government. It is a challenge about dealing with the movement of people globally, the displacement of people and their efforts to come to First World nations. Australia is one such nation—a nation which will indeed be a target for people who seek asylum—because we are signatories to the refugee convention. This is a country where people seek to come as they seek to go to Europe, the United States and other such countries. The fact is that we have been dealing with this issue for some time. It is true to say that this has been a very significant challenge for the government. What we are asking the opposition to do now is put the interests of this nation ahead of the interests of the Leader of the Opposition's career. What we are after the opposition to do now is join the government and ensure that the executive government of the day has the capacity to provide the best possible deterrent against allowing people-smuggling to continue in such a manner. That is all we are asking the Leader of the Opposition.

After the decision of the High Court it appeared, at least at that point, that the Leader of the Opposition was showing an uncharacteristic inclination to consider the situation by saying that he believed that the government of the day should be in a position to enact effective border protection policy. Unfortunately, since the time that he uttered those words he seems to have been walking away from his obligations to protect the interests of this nation. And that is a crying shame. We think that on this issue, where the Leader of the Opposition seeks to convince the people of Australia that he cares about border protection, he would join the government to ensure we have the best possible deterrent against the scourge of people smuggling, that we have the best possible deterrent against people being lured onto unseaworthy vessels on perilous journeys, that he would work with the government to ensure that we protected the interests not only of those desperate passengers on those vessels but also the personnel of Customs and Border Protection. That is what we would have expected a responsible and honourable Leader of the Opposition to do, and we still hold out some hope that sanity will prevail within the opposition to ensure that this government has the capacity to put in place the most effective deterrent as advised by experts—the same experts that advised the Howard government when they were dealing with such a challenge.

But to date we unfortunately have not heard that level of consensus. I know that by inclination and reflex the Leader of the Opposition will oppose, but I think he has now an opportunity to show that he does put this country's interests ahead of his own. What worries me most, and what will worry the people of Australia, is that the Leader of the Opposition will not support the government legislation to enact the Malaysian plan not because it will not work, but because he believes it will work. What would worry the Australian people is that this opposition leader would put his interests so far ahead of the national interest that he would prevent a plan that he has been advised would be the greatest deterrent to endangering the lives of desperate people, to allowing the people-smuggling trade to continue and to endangering the lives of Customs and Border Protection personnel.

As minister responsible for those operational agencies I can say that it worries me every day when Customs and Border Protection personnel are on the high seas, interdicting vessels in the dark and in very serious sea states. They are placing their lives in danger. We saw in April 2009, with SIEV36, that an explosion that killed five passengers could well have also killed members of our Customs and Border Protection personnel. Indeed, we saw on 15 December last year that awful tragedy with the foundering of SIEV221, the vessel that was holding people seeking asylum. They foundered on the rocks of Christmas Island, and up to 50 men, women and children perished. That was a very awful tragedy—a tragedy that would have been worse if it were not for the heroic efforts, dedication and professionalism of Customs and naval personnel who went to the aid of those who were still in the water and saved 40 people, plucking them directly from the sea. To do that took great acts of courage, and it worries me still that we will see more deaths if we do not stop these arrivals. I believe that the government—and, indeed, every member of this House who has a capacity to change the arrangements to ensure a greater deterrence—has to take some responsibility if we increase the capacity for vessels to arrive in this manner. It worries me that we have men and women in these vessels surveilling thousands of kilometres of water and indeed dealing with very serious challenges. And I do believe it is incumbent, certainly upon the government but also but upon the opposition, to consider that what we do or do not do has some bearing on the lives of our Customs and Border Protection personnel. I think that to date we have been fortunate that we have not lost a life from one of our agencies at sea.

I arrived on Christmas Island on 15 December to be told of that awful tragedy. And if not before, certainly from that day, I and of course other parliamentary and ministerial colleagues believed we had to put our entire focus on an arrangement that would lead to the greatest deterrent possible in order to prevent more men, women and children dying and that would prevent our Customs and Border Protection personnel from endangering their lives any further.

Indeed, for some considerable months the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, in particular, engaged with the government of Malaysia to embark upon what I believe is a very innovative approach to having the strongest possible deterrent and to stopping the people smugglers from being able to lure people on vessels with the promise that they can get to Australia. It is that lure, that enticement, that leads to these tragedies.

If the Leader of the Opposition will not to listen to the advice of the department that says to him that this is the most likely way we will see a decline in, and a cessation of, vessels arriving in this way then it worries me that the Leader of the Opposition and the opposition themselves are putting their base political interests ahead of not only the national interest but, more specifically, the lives of men, women and children, and the personnel of Customs and Border Protection, who are confronted with these situations each and every day.

The Leader of the Opposition can continue to assail the Prime Minister and can continue to argue about what might have happened 10 years ago and five years ago. What we know is that in the last number of weeks—indeed, most recently last week—the Leader of the Opposition has been provided with the best possible advice that the government has received, which says to him that Nauru will not work. Whatever deterrent it may have had in some limited way at some point before the people settled in Australia, that is not an option now. The people smugglers see the Nauru option as the Christmas Island option, just closer to the mainland of Australia. Unfortunately, that cannot work, if it ever did.

I can run through all of the reasons why there were major deficiencies in that option. I can also, of course, point to the fact that there were thousands and thousands of people who arrived on our shores after the introduction of temporary protection visas. Right now, however, the most fundamental issue that the parliament has to consider with respect to border protection is whether we are going to have consensus around whether executive government should have the capacity to put in place the most effective deterrent to prevent the people smugglers continuing their trade.

We have to make sure we come together and put in the most effective approach to reducing the chances of men, women and children perishing at sea and ensuring that the chances of any of our own personnel losing their life at sea are reduced as much as possible. These are the things that now concern me as the minister responsible for the operational side of this public policy area, and I do not believe that it is incumbent upon the Leader of the Opposition to continue to play politics with this issue.

It is now time that the Leader of the Opposition thinks about what he is doing and considers the ramifications of not entering into an agreement to allow the passage of legislation that would give executive government in this country the opportunity to accept the advice of the experts from the departments who have dealt with this issue. That is something that I believe that the opposition leader must turn his mind to. If he is serious about wanting to be perceived in this country as a leader, as a person who puts the interests of the nation first, then he has no alternative, I would argue, than to stop putting his political interests ahead of the national interest.

So I have to disagree with the Leader of the Opposition; I do not believe it is the case that the Nauru option is viable. It did not work effectively, in my view. It also coincided with the greatest repatriation of people because of the fall of the Taliban in Afghanistan and indeed the fall of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. It was a combination of factors that led to some of the repatriation that occurred, but the fact is that the people smugglers know that those who were not repatriated were settled either here or in New Zealand. That is not a deterrent. That is not something that is going to deter one person seeking to get on a vessel in Malaysia to come here.

I think, in his heart of hearts, that Tony Abbott knows that. In his heart of hearts the Leader of the Opposition knows that the Malaysian plan is the best possible plan. In knowing that, I think it is reprehensible and unconscionable conduct for the Leader of the Opposition not to allow the government of the day to enact the most effective plan that will protect the interests of this country, protect the efficacy of our borders, protect the interests of those people—

Mr Broadbent: It's not going to happen; you're wasting your time!

Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR: I hear the interjection by someone who supports onshore processing, which I do not think the Leader of the Opposition would be proceeding with. Mr Deputy Speaker, if I could continue without the interjections—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. Peter Slipper ): Order! The honourable member will remain silent.

Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR: This has been an area that has unfortunately ripped through the nation. There has been serious discord in our society for many a year as a result of this issue. It is one that we should never play politics with. The lives of men, women and children, of course, are endangered if we do not find the most effective approach to protect them, and the best way to protect them is to smash the business model—which is, of course, to allow people smugglers to say to them, 'Get on that vessel and you will get to Australia.' If we do not do that, and if the Leader of the Opposition does not support the government in that approach, then Tony Abbott will rue the day if he did not accept the proposition that we have to put the greatest and strongest deterrent in place to smash the people-smuggler model and to protect the interests of men, women and children; protect the interests of the personnel of Customs and Border Protection; and, indeed, protect the interests of this nation.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before calling the honourable Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I would remind the minister that under the standing orders he is supposed to refer to the Leader of the Opposition and all other members by their title and not by their name.

Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (16:00): The debacle that is this government's border protection policy is a sorry tale of gross incompetence with shocking consequences of the type that has come to define this Labor government. The sad truth is that it was all avoidable: the revival of the people-smuggling trade; the overcrowding of the detention centres; the capsized boats; the deaths at sea; and the blow-out in costs as the government lurched from crisis to crisis. This was all of their own making. There was no shortage of advice—expert advice—warning this government that weakening the coalition's strong border protection laws would result in a boost to the people-smuggling trade. The boat arrivals had virtually ceased under the Howard government. The people-smuggling trade had been disrupted. But the government could not leave well enough alone—oh, no. They had to dismantle the Howard government policies that had worked.

Documents released under freedom of information laws to News Limited showed that on 25 February 2008 the government was officially warned by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship about weakening the Howard government's policies. The government was formally, officially warned by its own department that closing the processing centre on Nauru would lead to an increase in people-smuggling, and the government went ahead in any event. We know that the Australian Federal Police warned this government that changing the laws would make Australia a target for the international criminal syndicates behind the people-smuggling trade, but this government dismissed that expert advice. It could not resist the temptation to change the laws, such was its smug confidence that the coalition had got it wrong.

The government so took for granted the fact that the Howard government had stopped the boats and that there were about half a dozen boat arrivals in our detention network at the time the Rudd government took over that the government ridiculed and denigrated the Christmas Island arrangement. The member for Melbourne Ports, in July 2008, visited the Christmas Island detention centre, and this is what the member for Melbourne Ports had to say about the Christmas Island detention centre: he declared it to be akin to a stalag—a German prisoner of war camp—and to be an 'enormous white elephant'. One wonders how the member for Melbourne Ports views the camps in Malaysia to which this Prime Minister intends to send people who are seeking asylum in Australia. How does the member for Melbourne Ports describe the camps in Malaysia if that is how he described Christmas Island? Presumably the member for Melbourne Ports will vote against the Prime Minister's Malaysia five-for-one people swap. How could he—or any member of the government who criticised Christmas Island, Nauru and Manus Island—now support this Prime Minister's desperate and despicable attempts to cling to power by sending asylum seekers to Malaysia?

Within weeks of the visit by the member for Melbourne Ports, the government weakened the laws that had been in place since 2001, which reduced the boats to a trickle—in some years there were no boats. And then what happened upon Labor's dismantling of the coalition policies? The boats started arriving almost immediately, as the government had been warned. The government reacted with assurances that the boat arrivals had nothing to do with the change in laws. Labor ministers argued that it was a coincidence that the changes in the laws occurred at a time when there was an increase in push factors. The driver, they argued, was push factors in other countries—factors beyond the control of the Australian government. But the boats kept coming, and in increasing numbers. Before long the 'enormous white elephant' on Christmas island had to be reopened, and still the boats kept coming. The number of arrivals soon swamped capacity on Christmas Island, and then work began on opening detention centres on the mainland. That was in clear breach of Labor's pre-election promises and commitments. And still the boats kept coming.

The pressure from the people smugglers had grown and grown and grown on this hapless government. The impact of this government's decision to weaken Australia's border protection has started to impact on international relations, and that was an obvious consequence. Australia's relationship with Indonesia was still recovering from this government's arrogant handling of the Oceanic Viking crisis in October and November of 2009 when this Prime Minister announced her ludicrous East Timor solution without informing the government of Indonesia. Given the blundering of her predecessor in this area, one could reasonably have expected the new Prime Minister to tread far more carefully and diplomatically in the regional minefield of people-smuggling and processing of asylum seekers. But not only did she not warn Indonesia of what she planned to do; she did not bother to tell East Timor. The Prime Minister clearly took no expert advice. She certainly did not take any advice from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, who had warned her on the very day that she took his job that plans to build a new regional processing centre in East Timor for asylum seekers would be very badly received in East Timor. But, with breathtaking ignorance and arrogance, the Prime Minister announced to the Australian media that East Timor would host a regional processing centre. Members will note that she pointedly singled out East Timor because it was a signatory to the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. In her speech, with the original title of 'Moving Australia forward', the Prime Minister spoke of East Timor as the place for a regional processing centre because it was a signatory to the UN convention on refugees. She did make one quick call to President Jose Ramos-Horta but was ignorant of the fact that the president was not the head of the government of East Timor. It might have come as a surprise to some, but the fact that the Prime Minister made only one phone call, and to the wrong person, just brought this government's ineptitude to a new level. It might have made her a laughing stock in East Timor, but at least the Prime Minister of East Timor showed the diplomatic skill that this Prime Minister lacked by quietly distancing his government from this proposal.

Then the Prime Minister revealed her really tricky side after it became clear that the East Timorese were impressed by neither her plan for their country nor the manner of its announcement. She claimed that she had not referred to East Timor as a location for the centre at all. This was too much for most people, even veteran press gallery journalist Laurie Oakes, who said:

Julia Gillard just looks silly and slippery and slimy and shifty in all that and it is a very, very bad start to her prime ministerial career.

It has only gotten worse. The Prime Minister attempted to back down from her back down, insisting that she was in fact in discussion with East Timor but with no other nation. Then the parliament of East Timor passed a unanimous resolution rejecting the Prime Minister's proposal. The East Timorese representatives made repeated statements, using careful diplomacy, that they did not want this regional processing centre foisted upon them, but the Prime Minister refused to acknowledge these concerns. Her behaviour verged on bullying as she maintained for months that negotiations were underway. One commentator dubbed it 'zombie diplomacy', an initiative that is technically dead but which the government is unable to officially kill because of the embarrassment and political fallout. Like Monty Python's parrot, the Prime Minister insisted the East Timor solution was not dead, merely resting.

This government has been caught out doing precisely what the Prime Minister said she would never do. She said that the government would reject any sending of asylum seekers to a country that was not a signatory to the UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. In fact, the Prime Minister ruled it out prior to the last election. Now she has announced the Malaysia solution. Malaysia is not a signatory to the UN convention on refugees. This is no solution. It is temporary. It is not legally binding. It is a one-off arrangement. It represents no long-term solution to ending the people-smuggling trade at all. It will be exhausted once 800 people are sent to Malaysia. This is such overwhelming hypocrisy. She ruled out sending any asylum seekers to a country not a signatory to the convention before the election and now she wants to only send asylum seekers to a country that is not a signatory. There are 144 countries that are signatories to the UN convention on refugees and this Prime Minister chooses Malaysia, which is not a signatory.

The Prime Minister once stated a belief in onshore processing, but now she is embracing offshore processing. The Prime Minister ruled out sending asylum seekers to a country that is not a signatory and now that is all she is doing. (Time expired)

Mr BRADBURY (Lindsay—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (16:10): This matter of public importance debate goes to the heart of the power of executive government. It is a debate that has arisen in the context of a decision of the High Court where the High Court has overturned what was believed to be the position of an act that was passed by this parliament. When an act is passed by this parliament—I am not going to lecture people on the separation of powers—the courts will interpret matters in an appropriate way. When this parliament decides on a course of action it has democratic legitimacy.

Mr Frydenberg interjecting—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. Peter Slipper ): Order! The honourable member for Kooyong does not appear to be in his place.

Mr Brendan O'Connor: And he's an idiot!

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The parliamentary secretary will resume his seat and I require the Minister for Home Affairs to withdraw that statement.

Mr Brendan O'Connor: I withdraw.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the minister.

Mr BRADBURY: When the member for Berowra introduced a bill which was duly passed by this House and which gave the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship certain powers those powers were exercised in good faith in the knowledge that the parliament had supported the position—the course of action that was being taken. That had the democratic legitimacy of any act of parliament that passes through this place and the other. When a court takes a decision to overturn that, particularly on a question that goes to the heart of the ability of executive government to protect our borders, then it raises considerable questions for the executive in the first instance but also particularly for the legislature. The legislature has to come to terms with whether or not it intends to amend the legislation so that its original intention is to prevail. That is indeed what this government intends to do.

There is a whole range of excuses that are being offered by the opposition—and it has not yet made its decision— as to why it says it may not go down the path of supporting this government in its efforts to ensure that the executive government has the ability to take the necessary action to protect our borders. There are two wings within the opposition on this question: there is the wing of respectability, those that feel the need to make a respectable argument, and then there is that wing led by the Leader of the Opposition that simply says that this is a question of how best to wreck a government and the very institutions of governance, and that is what it is going about doing. The Leader of the Opposition came in here earlier this afternoon and said, 'It is not the responsibility of the opposition to get the government out of trouble.' I tell you it is the responsibility of the opposition and every single member of this parliament to act in the national interest. In the same way as the member for Berowra brought forward that legislation before a previous parliament, members on all sides—and on our side of the chamber back then—joined with the member for Berowra in passing that legislation.

Opposition members interjecting—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Forde and the member for Forrest are not in their seats.

Mr BRADBURY: They did that not because they saw that they were getting the government out of trouble; they did that because they saw, as elected members of parliament for their community, they had an obligation to act in the national interest. That is the challenge that each and every member of this parliament faces on every bill that comes before them. The challenge for the opposition will soon be upon them, and they will have to make the decision as to whether they go down that path.

The Leader of the Opposition came in and said: 'We will wreck. I don't care about what this does for future governments when it comes to the ability of executive government to act, and to act decisively, to secure our borders.' In a desperate pursuit of short-term gain, which must only be about trying to bring this government down short of its term, he said he would do that rather than empower the executive government to do what every Australian would believe to be its first and foremost responsibility—and that is to protect our borders and to manage our migration program. That is what is at stake.

The Leader of the Opposition came in here and said, 'We've got to get the facts straight,' and he pointed out a fact that he believed the Prime Minister had got wrong. Can I point out that the Leader of the Opposition said that 1,500 people were taken to Nauru under the Howard government's Pacific solution. He ought to get his facts straight, because 1,322 people went to Nauru and 315 went to Manus Island. If you cannot get your facts straight, do not come into this place and start accusing others of not getting their facts straight.

I mentioned there are two wings in the coalition. There is the 'let's wreck and bring the House down' wing. And then there is the wing that seek some fig leaf of respectability, and they argue that they cannot support Malaysia because it is not a signatory to the convention. I think the member for Cook likes to consider that he is the leader of that wing within the coalition, and we will hear more from him shortly, but those in that wing come forward and say, 'We cannot allow Malaysia because they're not a signatory to the convention.' I note that when this point was raised in relation to Nauru in the past, the member for Cook said it was a furphy. The Leader of the Opposition used the same word, saying it was a furphy. If that is the standard against which this government and any future government, an executive government, acting to secure the borders of this country, is going to be judged, then you should think very carefully about what that might mean for any future government when they seek to do what governments in the past have always sought to do and what governments in this country will always need to be able to do into the future.

The member for Cook, who likes to talk about how terrible this Malaysian arrangement is because they are not signatory to the convention and who is now holding up whether or not a nation is a signatory to the convention as being the key test—

Mr Morrison interjecting—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. Peter Slipper ): The honourable member for Cook will have his opportunity.

Mr BRADBURY: is the same person that, back in 2010, actually suggested that there are better solutions. He mentioned Pakistan. I must have missed something, but Pakistan, as far as I am aware, is not a signatory to the convention.

Mr Morrison interjecting—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The honourable member for Cook will remain silent for the rest of the parliamentary secretary's contribution. The parliamentary secretary has the call.

Mr BRADBURY: His so-called solution was to do what he now calls a 'people swap' with Pakistan or Iran. Pakistan is not a signatory to the convention. Iran might be a signatory to the convention, but the member for Curtin, who just had a bit to say in this debate, said at the beginning of last year:

Iran continues to face domestic turmoil with ongoing security crackdowns on political dissent and reports that thousands of citizens have been detained while the media has been greatly restricted.

So Malaysia is such a terrible place and this arrangement is such an outrageous arrangement that they would be prepared to come into this place and strip the executive government of the power that it needs to act decisively on this matter, but they would be happy to see a similar arrangement entered into with Pakistan or Iran. These are the people who come into this place day after day talking about mandates. Well, an overwhelming majority of the members elected to this place went to the last election wanting to introduce offshore processing. Indeed, each and every one of them not only wanted to introduce offshore processing; they wanted to introduce offshore processing in a country that was not a signatory to the convention. So do not come into this place and lecture us about the human rights side of this debate.

We as a government believe that it is entirely appropriate for executive government to act to try and provide the disincentives that will stop people from hopping on boats and taking that treacherous journey . We think that that is important. We believe that the Malaysian arrangement will work. If those on the other side are serious about their obligations to serve their communities, to serve this country and to serve the national interest, then they should ensure that the legislation is amended to give effect to what they sought to put in place when they were in government, what this government needs to be put in place so that we can achieve the outcomes that we want, and what any future government will need if they are to effectively tackle this question of irregular movements of people in our region. (Time expired)

Mr MORRISON (Cook) (16:21): It is my understanding, and I think that of most people around this place, that the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, after the recent decision of the High Court, offered his resignation to the Prime Minister. The member for Lindsay—the 'Commander', as he is known—may have just failed his audition to take his place. It is totally understandable that the minister would have offered his resignation, given the bungles and the disasters that have occurred in his portfolio, only equalled by those under his predecessor. However, it is not for his failure to have a crystal ball on the High Court that I believe he should chastise himself; it is for his failure of policy.

It is understandable that the Prime Minister did not accept his resignation because the Prime Minister would have well understood that the minute the minister walked out the door she would have to follow him straight afterwards. She was right not to make the minister for immigration the scapegoat for this government's failed policies, because she was equally culpable as the architect of this government's 'anything but Nauru' strategy that has taken them to this cul-de-sac, this dead end, of policy failure. It really matters little though who the minister is, or even who the Prime Minister is, in this government when it comes to managing this issue of border protection because the result is always the same: it is just one big mess and that mess continues. As people outside of this place speculate about who will be the Prime Minister of this country or who will be the minister for immigration, one thing is certainly true: you can shuffle this Labor deck all you want, every time you will pull out a joker.

The government say they want to break the people smugglers' business model. What they refuse to admit is that since the Rudd-Gillard government abolished the Howard government's border protection regime—against advice that they now come into this place and pretend is sacrosanct—Labor have become the people smugglers' business model in this country for the past three years. If you went to people-smugglers'' boardrooms, you would find the pictures of the former minister and Prime Minister joined more recently by the current Prime Minister and the current minister. They would be the most popular policymakers in the people smugglers' fraternity throughout Indonesia. Where was the apparent respect for this advice, which this government now claims it has, when they were presented with the facts, when they were told, 'If you dismantle this you will encourage the people-smuggling business again'? There were just four people—less than the number of fingers on one hand—in the detention network who had arrived illegally by boat. Under this government it has exceeded 6,500.

Since they abolished the Howard government's regime, 12,262 people have arrived on 241 illegal boats, the most recent of which was the Prime Minister's own personal tonne of policy failure as the hundredth boat on her watch arrived and is now being unloaded at Christmas Island. What we have seen from this government, after it abandoned the processes and the policies that had worked so effectively, has been a procession of policy failures. Firstly, the asylum freeze, which they have gone very quiet about on that side. This was the most discriminatory immigration policy introduced to this parliament since we had the White Australia policy. That is what came from members on that side. That is what this government did. They introduced a policy which said; 'If you're Sri Lankan, if you're an Afghan, we will not process your claims. Your nationality would determine your assessment status before the Australian government.' And they have the hypocrisy to give lectures about non-discriminatory immigration policy! That was a very black day for Australia when the previous minister for immigration and the previous Prime Minister—supported by a cabinet that included the then Deputy Prime Minister and now Prime Minister—implemented that disgraceful policy. That was strike one.

Strike two was the East Timor farce, which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has gone well into in her remarks here this afternoon. That was just simply embarrassing. Regional leaders were forced to endure the polite conversation of failed policy time and time again. Serious issues for our region had to be put on the backburner while this Prime Minister went through this farce, this zombie foreign affairs as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition mentioned in her remarks. The East Timor farce became yet another policy failure.

Then, of course, we have the Malaysian non-solution. This solution, as it was described, has become exactly the opposite. Four hundred people have turned up on an 800 cap since it was signed and almost 1,000 since it was first announced. Why and how this government thought it was a good idea to announce this arrangement before completing any negotiations is beyond this side of the House. It really took the incompetence of negotiating to a whole new level and betrayed their complete incompetence as a government.

These failed policies have led to what we have seen: a detention network which has descended into chaos and riots. More than four critical incidents, which include self-harm, violence and even death, occur in the detention network every single day. We have had budget blow-outs. The government tried to lecture us on budgets on the weekend. This is a government that took a policy that was costing less than $100 million a year and turned it into a policy that is costing $1 billion a year—and they want to lecture this side of the House on how to manage these matters and how to manage costs!

The former minister and the current minister ignored warnings time and time again as the boats arrived. I would really like to know this: after how many boats did it take for this government to finally work out that it had to, as they like to say ad nauseam, break the people-smugglers' business model, which is code for to reverse the pull factor effect, the magnetic effect, of their failed policies. After what boat was that? Was it after boat two? Because after boat two, the Canadian government introduced temporary protection visas. Was it after boat 100? Was it after boat 200? Was it after boat 230? After which boat did they finally work out that their policies were responsible for the mess that has happened on their watch?

They also ignored the warnings in our detention network. Last week I was part of the detention committee inquiry on Christmas Island where we learnt in October the minister, this minister, was on Christmas Island and was warned that the security fence connecting the two major compounds needed to be upgraded and CCTV cameras had to be put in the Aqua/Lilac compounds. That was the advice from Serco, from the Australian Federal Police and from the minister's own department. When riots broke out on 11 March that fence, which Minister Bowen did not fix, was the one they broke through. That fence was the one they fashioned weapons from. In that compound the CCTV cameras did not exist. And this is the minister who likes to lecture those on this side of the House about the need to listen to his department and take its advice. The Malaysian solution is being presented to this place and those opposite are expecting this parliament to overlook the policy failings of this government, the policy failures that are within the construction of this proposal, and simply give them a legislative blank cheque. I would consider that this minister has already abused the discretion he thought he had with these protections. These protections are an important principle within the Migration Act. It did not say that you could just declare a country and send them anywhere you like. It said there had to be protections in place. This is a minister who has sought to come back to this place and say, 'I do not need any more protections'—and in fact he said this in the House yesterday—'The protections are satisfactory.' He is happy with the protections that are in place, which see 94,000 people share one clinic and children who are sent there not going to public schools, and he is happy to see them go to a country where for five years 16 people were caned every single day, on average, for immigration offences. But he is happy with the protections. This is what he wants to put in place.

He came back to their caucus and to this parliament and said, 'I am not going to fix the policy; I am just going to look for a legislative excuse to deal with it.' And the zombies on that side of the House, as they paraded into the caucus the other day, simply rolled over on their Prime Minister and let her do whatever she wanted. We are not going to necessarily give this government a legislative blank cheque on protections. They need to address their policy failures, and they are manifest. (Time expired)

Mr DANBY (Melbourne Ports) (16:31): I heard the word 'necessarily' from the member for Cook and was quite excited by his slip of the tongue. Yesterday we announced that we would seek to amend the Migration Act to allow for offshore processing. If passed by the parliament, these changes would—to use the rhetoric of the opposition—help to stop the boats. Given their past rhetoric, those opposite should support such legislation. After all, they campaigned for it at the last election. Who can forget the tawdry leaflets with the red arrows coming down, produced by the opposition—'Real Action on Immigration'! It reminds you of something from the 1950s.

Of course there is a place for offshore processing in Australia's migration policy. The former Liberal Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser had offshore processing in Hong Kong and Indonesia when we had the great surge of Vietnamese boat people. Offshore processing has its place in a comprehensive migration policy. It seems, however, that the opposition leader and his immigration spokesman, the member for Cook, who have huffed and puffed about stopping the boats, now will not support such legislation. Maybe his slip of the tongue in here, with 'necessarily', is an indication that they will.

This is despite the fact that the High Court has made a decision which should lead any cautious person—anyone who had the slightest doubt put into their mind by that decision—to at least change their mind, to think about it, to think that supporting such legislation might be necessary in the interests of the country, including the opposition's long-term interest.

Today the Editor-at-Large of the Australian, Paul Kelly, argued that refusing to support this legislation will mean that offshore processing will be doomed. Mr Kelly argued:

This week's Immigration Department briefings mean the onus falls on Tony Abbott to decide whether his aim is to stop the boats or merely sink the Gillard Government ... What is required now is obvious: Labor and the Coalition need to amend the Migration Act to restore power to the executive government to negotiate offshore processing arrangements in the region. It is an open and shut case—except for the politics.

What we effectively have now is the opposition in alliance with the Greens, saying that they will sink this legislation here or in the Senate.

Mr Kelly was not alone in his assessment. Yesterday, the Foreign Editor of the Australian, Greg Sheridan, wrote:

In rejecting legislative change to allow the Gillard government to revive its Malaysia deal for asylum seekers, Tony Abbott is making the biggest policy mistake of his life ... Abbott is in danger of performing a too-clever-by-half trick on himself, making sure that if he does become prime minister he will not have the legislative and administrative tools to fulfil his pledge to stop the boats.

The Leader of the Opposition, the member for Warringah, refuses to accept the proposed changes to the Migration Act, because instead of thinking about the national interest, indeed his own long-term interest, he has only one thing on his mind: short-term politics—'How can I best and most quickly get into the Lodge?'

Just this year the member for Warringah and the member for Cook wanted to play the game of fear rather than actually proposing a policy in the national interest. We heard the comments of the members for Warringah and Cook early this year on those who perished during the Christmas Island incident, with both making inappropriate and insensitive remarks about the funerals of those who died. These are the people who claim to be great humanitarians now, who are outraged about people being sent to Malaysia. What did the Leader of the Opposition say? 'It does seem a bit unusual that the government is flying people to funerals,' he told Melbourne Talk Radio on 15 February.

In an article from the Sydney Morning Herald on 17 February, it was reported that the member for Cook said that the Liberal Party should capitalise on the dislike of some of the boat people that were arriving in Australia. Mr Morrison told the shadow cabinet meeting of 1 December at the Ryde Civic Centre that the coalition should 'ramp up its questioning of "multiculturalism" and appeal to deep voter concerns about Muslim immigration and "inability" to integrate'. The Liberal Party's faux concerns about human rights and humanitarian conditions explained today are laughable given their history of using fear and their leaflets during the last election—the ones with the red arrows—about those people coming to our shores by boat.

We all remember the opposition's extraordinary ad with red arrows, indicating that hordes of people were coming to our shores from Asia and the Middle East. This was the official Liberal Party ad, 'Real Action'. Remember 'Real Action' from last year's 2010 federal election? I bet you that, if I asked my friend the member for Goldstein if I could table it, he would not let me table it. I seek leave, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, to table the Liberal Party's ad from the last election.

Leave granted.

Mr DANBY: Excellent, thank you. Mr Abbott has claimed that his policies were necessary to prevent a 'peaceful invasion'. That is what he said in the Australian on 16 October 2009. An invasion? This kind of hyperbole is designed to win a few political points. It does not solve the complex national policy issues involved with border security and immigration. Those opposite do not seem to understand the complexity involved in this immigration policy. It is much more nuanced than just stopping the boats. Their solution, as outlined by Mr Morrison, the member for Cook, is to send those who come here to Iran and, as we heard today, Pakistan or to drag the boats back to sea.

Even more laughable is that the member for Warringah claimed during the last election campaign that he would have a 'boat phone' to ring border security as soon as a boat entered Australian waters. But even more astonishing is what the member for Cook said when interviewed by Leigh Sales on 7.30on 28 June this year after he had visited Malaysia. He proceeded to criticise the Malaysian government. Leigh Sales said:

You have just been in Malaysia and sat here and given me your assessment of the conditions there, in effect you are saying the Malaysian Government cannot guarantee the human rights of these people?

Mr Morrison said:

Well this is the practical reality, Leigh … and the Australian Government should not be going down this path when they know that that is the case. Now if they don't know that is the case then they should do what I've just done and I'm happy to share my experiences with them—

He is talking about the government. He continued:

I've been to Nauru and Malaysia and I know which is the more humane, cost effective and I know which is proven.

Unauthorised boat arrivals are an issue, but it is far from the end-of-days issue painted by the opposition.

Now we come to the business end of this issue. Will the opposition act in the national interest or will they pursue narrow, short-term objectives? The question is whether the opposition want to come together with the government. As the Prime Minister said, the executive arm of government has the right to make decisions on immigration and foreign policy. If the Leader of the Opposition does not believe this, he must explain to the Australian people why he is running away from his own announced policy. Why is he putting the immigration policy of Australia into total turmoil?

Our policy is about ensuring that Australia retains its rightful role in welcoming a reasonable number of the world's refugees while maintaining the security of our borders. In fact, we have a wonderful immigration policy under which we admit more than 100,000 people to this country. I strongly believe we are sent here to parliament to legislate not only for today but also with an eye for the future. We have a responsibility to look beyond short-term advantage and beyond the elections.

The opposition roared today with concern when I raised the prospect of the Liberal-Green alliance in the other place sinking this legislation. Plainly hatred of the Labor government outweighs any cool, rational examination of this issue, even from the point of self-interest by the member for Warringah. The member for Curtin was full of invective in her contribution today. The member for Warringah kept citing the following words, 'It's not in the opposition's interest to get the government off the hook.' But it is in Australia's interests, as Mr Kelly and Mr Sheridan pointed out. Neither the member for Cook, the member for Curtin nor the member for Warringah addressed the implications of the High Court decision. What happens if boats leave from Indonesia now without any legislation being in place to deal with the boats sitting in Indonesia about to come to Australia? The media and the people of Australia will judge the Liberal Party on this issue whether they back short-term interests or the national interest. It is a ridiculous situation when they are looking only at their own short-term interest, not at the national interest. (Time expired)

Mr LAURIE FERGUSON (Werriwa) (16:41): We have heard some grandiose language from those opposite today, from the member for Curtin and the member for Cook. We have heard phrases such as the 'dead end of policy failure', 'gross incompetence' et cetera. We have heard since the High Court decision comments by the self-styled and self-opinionated shadow Attorney-General about Nauru. For all of the opposition's criticisms leading up to the High Court decision, I do not recall the shadow Attorney-General pontificating that it would fail legally. I do not recall them saying that they knew the law, that they had expertise in that area and that it would fail on those grounds.

We did have the member for Cook parading around with a video outside some purported camps in Malaysia. This is the same man who in a Lowy Institute speech on 30 November 2010 put an alternative about Australian immigration. He talked of sending people back to Iran. I am not here today to defend Malaysia. It is, however, a democracy by any standards. It is a multicultural society. It is a former member of the Commonwealth and has some nuances of its court systems. We saw that a former minister who was victimised at least had some legal rights. We see these people parading around saying how dreadful it would be that people go back to Malaysia.

Obviously this government negotiated with Malaysia to ensure some protection for the people who were being sent back, but on 30 November last year the shadow minister for immigration, the member for Cook, said to the Lowy Institute that he would send people back to Iran and Pakistan—that he would have a 'returns policy'. They have the effrontery today to say that Malaysia was the end of Western civilisation. I think the kinds of associations we have with Malaysia, for all its faults, are such that they would lead us to say that it is a preferable policy to that which he put forward. They talk about dead ends of policy, but I wonder where we would be if he had had the chance to operate those kinds of policies back then.

We also had them come in here today with crocodile tears about people drowning at sea, about people who are self-harming and about people who are rioting. Somehow they have forgotten about Cornelia Rau and they have forgotten about Solon; they have forgotten about the millions of dollars the Australian taxpayer has had to fork out for those kinds of failures in detention. They are ignoring, as they well know, the kinds of reforms that were instituted at the beginning of the new government in relation to what happens in detention. The problems we still have in maintaining conditions there because of the numbers arriving are not easy for Labor or Liberal governments, but, as they well know, the kinds of protections that have been brought in since the change of government are very significant. Another point I would turn to is this disgust at the dismantlement of their policies. They think everything has collapsed because we got rid of temporary protection visas and Nauru.

Mr Entsch: Yes.

Mr LAURIE FERGUSON: I want to cite the member for Murray, a friend of the person interjecting opposite, who was their spokesperson at one stage. On 1 December 2008 she said, and this is a very timely comment I have to agree, 'The closure of Nauru and Manus Island … of course they had basically—what shall we say—outlived their need … I do not think we need to again have Nauru and Manus Island operating, because we've got of course Christmas Island.' Today they are saying that this government must operate Nauru and no other alternative in the whole world. Back then, as I said, on 1 December on 2SM, a reputable station, she made the comment that Nauru had outlived its time.

Mr Entsch interjecting—

Mr LAURIE FERGUSON: If the member opposite is not satisfied with that—there might be some mistake in that quote, I do not think there is—she went further on 16 April 2009 in the Australian, a reputable source according to the member opposite. She said about the Pacific solution:

We no longer have that requirement because we've got an alternative place which is in our excised migration zone, Christmas Island.

Today and in the weeks past the opposition will not cooperate with this government to get a policy to have some controls on the entry of boats to this country, because we will not go along with Nauru, and yet in 2008 and 2009 there was no need for this alternative.

They were getting very excited today about whether or not the Prime Minister had said that 90 per cent of the Nauru people came to Australia or whether it was 70 per cent to Australia and 20 per cent to New Zealand. What a minor issue that is in this broad nationally important issue. Quite frankly, as members on this side have said, it was no disincentive to those claimants to be sent to New Zealand. We all know, for instance, that Fijian Indians predominantly went to New Zealand to come to Australia because of New Zealand's more liberal immigration policy on recognising claims from Fiji. We know, despite some toughening up in social security in recent years, that vast numbers of New Zealanders, which they would become, would eventually come to Australia. Even if for a moment we give them some concessions with regard to that statistical irrelevancy then it certainly would mean that most of those people came to Australia. They talk about a blow-out of costs; they talk about deaths at sea. I do not recall any concern by them when many people died under their policies.

The other point is that this government, like any government, needs to have some controls over immigration policy. If we are to have a humanitarian refugee intake which reflects the problems of the time then we, the Australian government, must have some controls about who is coming in in that 13,750 people each year. If we do not, if the opposition does not cooperate with us in getting the government some control in this policy area, again this country cannot respond to the United Nations or even the UNHCR when they come to this government and say to us, 'These Bhutanese have been in camps for 17 years in Nepal. Will you help us take some?' Australia, Canada, America and New Zealand can say: 'Yes, we will help you because we have some control. We will determine some of the people in that intake.' Australia turned around and took 1,000 Bhutanese over a three-year period.

To give credit to those opposite, equally when the UNHCR said: 'Australia has not been interested enough in Africa. We have crises in Congo, Sudan, Liberia, Sierra Leone. We have many widows with large families that have no protection,' the previous Liberal government could turn around and say, 'Yes, we will set aside one-third of Australia's refugee humanitarian intake for Africans.' Similarly, in the last year or so, the current government has reacted to the request, again from the UNHCR, that we should take Burmese. In years past the government of this country, when requested by the UNHCR—by the way, the UNHCR says this country has the best settlement process in the world—could turn around and say that we will take some Burmese Rohingya who have been in camps in Bangladesh for long periods. We cannot do that if the opposition is making sure that we cannot do anything about boat arrivals. If they are digging in in some arrogant attempt at partisan politics to avoid supporting the national interest by giving the government of this country, Labor or Liberal, executive power to determine where we can negotiate agreements to send people offshore, then it is on their head. For all their rhetoric about security and migration policy which has international legitimacy, it is on their head if they do not cooperate with this government in making sure that the executive can indeed have power in this area.

We have seen, as I said, much rhetoric today from them. They talked also about non-discriminatory policy. They complained that for a period of time this government said that we would look at the situation in Afghanistan and in Sri Lanka before we will examine some cases. I know that during the election before last they went around to Middle Eastern Christian communities in the presence of migration department officials and they said to those very biased, very bigoted groups who have had a bad experience in the Middle East, 'If you elect us, not one Muslim will be let in from the Middle East.' They knew that they could not legally do it, but they went around saying that they would determine our immigration policy on a discriminatory basis. They have the hide to come in here today and say that—because there were conflicting views from various NGOs about the situation of human rights in Afghanistan and Sri Lanka and we thought there was a need to slow down processing to see what the state of their internal human rights was—that is discrimination when they went around before that election— (Time expired)

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Order! Before I call the Chief Government Whip, I note in the gallery a school from my constituency, the Nanango State High School, setting a great example of behaviour as well. I commend them for that and welcome them to the gallery. With those few words, I call the Chief Government Whip.

Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (16:56): I move:

(1) That a Joint Select Committee on Australia's Clean Energy Future Legislation be appointed to inquire into and report on the provisions of the following bills:

(a) Clean Energy Bill 2011;

(b) Clean Energy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011;

(c) Clean Energy (Income Tax Rates Amendments) Bill 2011;

(d) Clean Energy (Household Assistance Amendments) Bill 2011;

(e) Clean Energy (Tax Laws Amendments) Bill 2011;

(f) Clean Energy (Fuel Tax Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011;

(g) Clean Energy (Customs Tariff Amendment) Bill 2011;

(h) Clean Energy (Excise Tariff Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011;

(i) Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment Bill 2011;

(j) Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment Bill 2011;

(k) Clean Energy (Unit Shortfall Charge—General) Bill 2011;

(l) Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge—Auctions Bill 2011;

(m) Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge—Fixed Charge) Bill 2011;

(n) Clean Energy (International Unit Surrender Charge) Bill 2011;

(o) Clean Energy (Charges—Customs) Bill 2011;

(p) Clean Energy (Charges—Excise) Bill 2011;

(q) Clean Energy Regulator Bill 2011;

(r) Climate Change Authority Bill 2011; and

(s) Steel Transformation Plan Bill 2011.

(2) That the committee consist of 12 members, three members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, two members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips, one Greens member, one non-aligned member, two senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, two senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and one Greens senator.

(3) That every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

(4) That the persons appointed for the time being to serve on the committee shall constitute the committee notwithstanding any failure by the Senate or the House of Representatives to appoint the full number of senators or members referred to in this resolution.

(5) That the committee elect a Government member as its chair.

(6) That the committee elect a member as its deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee, and at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting.

(7) That, in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote.

(8) That four members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include at least one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either house.

(9) That the committee have power to call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced.

(10) That the committee may conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit.

(11) That the committee have the power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives.

(12) That the committee report on or before 4 October 2011.

(13) That the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.

(14) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur with the action accordingly.

Today I am moving a motion to refer the bills that were moved earlier today to a joint parliamentary committee to enable closer scrutiny of the bills. Given the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee process and the extensive debate already conducted, the government considers this to be the appropriate mechanism. Carbon pricing and climate change policy have been widely debated in Australia for more than a decade, including through some 35 parliamentary committee inquiries. This will make No. 36.

The first review of emissions trading by an Australian government was in 1998, some 13 years ago. There was extensive policy work undertaken by the former, Howard government, most notably by Peter Shergold, which concluded that pricing carbon through a market based mechanism was the best approach. In addition, of course, Professor Ross Garnaut has conducted two major reviews on Australia's best policy options for tackling climate change. The government's Clean Energy Future package was developed through a parliamentary committee process, the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee, which met for nine months before completing its work in July this year. The federal coalition, the Greens and Independents were invited to participate in the MPCCC. Only the coalition declined.

Since the establishment of the MPCCC in September 2010, the government has engaged widely, including through the business and NGO roundtables. In February, the government released the framework for its carbon pricing policy and sought feedback. Draft legislation was released for consultation in late July and over 1,300 submissions were received. This contrasts with the coalition's introduction of Work Choices, where there were only eight days to make a submission to a Senate committee inquiry that reported back one week later. It was the most significant reform to workplace relations in Australian history—legislation that stripped away the rights of working Australians—but there was no opportunity to view the legislation before it was introduced into the parliament in 2005.

By contrast, we have had countless consultations, inquiries and reports. The time has come to deliver a low-carbon economy of the future and give business and investors the certainty they have been asking for. The Liberals certainly do not need another long inquiry to decide how they are going to vote. The whole country knows how Tony Abbott is going to vote: he is going to vote no. He continually says that that is the case. He has said that he stakes his political future on opposition to this legislation. So spending months more on this is not going to tell us anything that we do not already know; it will just cost business the certainty that they need and that they are asking for. The Australian community want action on climate change. They want us to get on with it.

The government has been open, transparent and consultative about this process. We have shared with the Australian community all the available research that has informed our thinking. There was, of course, a time when the Leader of the Opposition believed in action on climate change. There was a time, towards the end of the Howard government and then in opposition, when all those opposite supported an emissions trading scheme. This is an opportunity for the opposition to demonstrate that they can put the national interest ahead of self-interest, but I do not think that will be the case.

Instead we will have, once again, the Leader of the Opposition—the walking vuvuzela—walking around just saying, 'no, no, no,' to any initiative of the government because there is just one sound that he makes. In his press conference today the Leader of the Opposition claimed that this legislation is being rushed through in spite of the fact that there will be a whole month of debate in this parliament about this legislation.

The government has also indicated to the opposition and the crossbenchers that we are more than prepared to sit extra hours in the coming fortnight in order to make sure that everyone can participate in this debate. I will leave it to those opposite, who say on the one hand that they want extra debate on this but who, on the other hand, say that they are opposed to sitting extra hours to facilitate that debate, to explain that process. Perhaps they will change their minds.

Mr Pyne: Are you going to move a motion about extra hours?

Mr ALBANESE: I will certainly move a motion about extra hours. I have attempted in my style as Leader of the House to get consensus. I have approached the Manager of Opposition Business about that to ensure that that is the case.

Mr Pyne: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is a debate about a motion to establish a joint select committee of the House. It is not a motion about extra sitting hours. If the Leader of the House wants to move a motion about extra sitting hours then we will debate it when he does so. If he has run out of material he does not need to fill his time. I am happy to let him off the hook.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): There is no point of order. The member for Sturt will resume his seat.

Mr ALBANESE: They are very desperate to oppose at every single opportunity. We will have the debate on this process. It will begin tomorrow. The debate will begin, the bills have all been introduced, members will be able to participate and people in the broader community will be able to make submissions and participate in the joint committee process. They will be able to do that.

I do note that unlike every single committee established by the former, coalition government, without exception, the government is not seeking to have a government majority on this committee. That is indicative of the approach which we have taken, which is an inclusive approach. It is one that has said, 'Let's get the submissions from scientists on the science,'—not the flat-earthers, but the scientists on the science. When it comes to the economists we think that there should be an opportunity for economists to make submissions about the appropriate mechanisms to find the cheapest way to deliver a reduction in carbon emissions.

Those opposite, of course, would rather listen to the submissions of the Citizens Electoral Council and all sorts of flat-earth groups—the League of Rights—the sorts of people who were demonstrating outside my office with the member for Indi a couple of weeks ago. They were there with their signs, 'Tolerance is our demise,' outside an office in Marrickville Road. How to make friends with multicultural Australia: 'Tolerance is our demise' is their approach! It is little wonder that they are opposed to setting up this committee, which will add to the transparency.

There will be a process whereby the committee will report prior to any votes being held in the parliament. For those people who have been here a while, that never occurred under Work Choices or under the GST legislation. There was never the certainty provided that this government is prepared to provide. That is what this motion is doing. The fact is that this position will allow for proper participation. It will allow for that participation whilst the carbon bills are being discussed in the second reading debate.

I note that there have been some figures given by those opposite about the amount of time that would be allowed for debate per bill on this. We were allowed 30 seconds per member per GST bill before this parliament. Indeed, that was an improvement. That was the best practice of the former, coalition government, unlike what they did in the Work Choices legislation. We will allow members to participate.

Mr Robb: No-one should look backwards. You're looking in the past. Why don't you call an election on it?

Mr ALBANESE: I can understand that the member for Goldstein is humiliated by this issue, having taken on a job with the then Leader of the Opposition as the shadow minister for emissions trading. He was the shadow minister for emissions trading but he says he is against emissions trading. Unbelievable! It is like being a shadow minister for the environment who is against the environment, or a shadow minister for employment who is against employment. It is absurd; the member for Goldstein says that he never supported an emissions trading scheme but he was prepared to take on the job as the shadow minister for emissions trading. It is no wonder that the member for Wentworth gives character assessments on the member for Goldstein to anyone who asks for one.

Mr PYNE (Sturt—Manager of Opposition Business) (17:07): I rise to speak on the motion by Leader of the House to establish the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Clean Energy Future Legislation. The opposition will amend this motion and we will oppose this motion. We will vote against it even if our amendments are carried for the simple reason that the change to the climate and the need to have a carbon tax, according to the government post the election, is the most important crisis facing the country, so vitally important that it requires a broken promise from the Prime Minister to try and bring a bill into this parliament and pass it before the end of the year, to gag the debate and to truncate the process of this parliament which has established a selection committee process and a number of House committees.

So vitally important is this legislation that the Prime Minister said before the election, 'There will be no carbon tax under any government I lead' and the Treasurer said before the election that the suggestion that there would be a carbon tax was a 'ludicrous proposition being put by the opposition'. What did we see after the election? We saw that promise junked by this Prime Minister and this Treasurer in very short order following the forming of this government. We have seen since that time a complete inability of the government to explain to the Australian people why we must have a carbon tax that will push up the cost of living, export our emissions as trade exposed industries move to overseas destinations, export jobs, attack the steel industry and the coal industry and, more importantly, put up the price of every good and service across Australia thereby pushing up the cost-of-living pressures that Australian families are already facing.

The government came in here today, having trashed the selection committee process and the House committee process, expecting this opposition and this parliament to establish a joint select committee on Australia's Clean Energy Future legislation. Why are they doing this? They are doing it because they know that the selection committee would refer these bills to the five specialist committees of this House that exist to scrutinise government legislation. This is a package of 19 bills—not one bill, 19 bills; more than 1,000 pieces of legislation—from a government that has been unable to answer questions in question time about the detail of this carbon tax legislation that we have routinely exposed over months. The government decided that it is very important that the specialist committees of this House are not given the opportunity to scrutinise this legislation. On this side of the House our view is that it is very important for the specialist committees of the House to scrutinise this package of 19 bills to try and finally get some answers for the parliament and the people who want to know the detail.

The Australian people could quite rightly assume that this is a government that is flying blind. This is a government without a rudder. It is a government without a captain who has authority and without a rudder to guide the ship. The whole purpose of the House committees that the selection committee is responsible for is to scrutinise government legislation to ensure that the legislation reflects the government's promises. The Australian people expect an opposition and an entire parliament to properly scrutinise these 19 bills, but this government has decided to truncate that process. This government has decided to trash the selection committee process.

The crossbenchers have routinely stood up for the process of the selection committee. The crossbenchers stood in this House two sitting weeks ago on a Thursday morning and voted against sensible opposition motions to refer bills and to ask the member for Dobell to come into the House. One after the other they stood up and said the most important reform in this so-called new paradigm—they agreed on it with the Leader of the House and me after the last election—was to establish a selection committee process and a committee structure that would have specialist committees. Why this is so relevant is that we are now debating a joint select committee designed to truncate the selection committee process and the House specialist committees. That is why the opposition will not support it.

Out of the goodness of my heart I facilitated an early start of the parliament at midday today to allow these bills to be introduced. Yet again I made the mistake of believing that the government was acting in good faith. But that is done; the bills have been introduced. Now there is an opportunity for those bills to sit on the table for at least a week, as is the normal process in this parliament. Bills of such importance should sit on the table for at least a week to give the shadow minister, the back bench, the government and opposition members the opportunity to formulate their ideas about such significant legislation.

Let us remember that this carbon tax will change our economy in a more fundamental way than any other change since Federation. Yet the government is gagging the debate and truncating the process of referrals to specialist House committees. The government should have allowed the bills to sit on the table. It should have started the debate next week. The selection committee should have had the opportunity to refer these bills to the specialist committees of this House for proper scrutiny so that the parliament does not make the inadvertent errors for which this government has become famous. One mistake after another has been made by the Labor government, whether under the prime ministership of the member for Griffith or under the current Prime Minister's watch. So I have absolutely no doubt that there will be mistakes in this legislation. There will be mistakes; the government is famous for it. It is probably the most incompetent and inept government run by a group of the most inept and incompetent ministers since Federation, and that includes governments which have previously been described that way. Unfortunately, three members who have been described that way are sitting on the front bench of the government today—and aren't they looking as if they are embarrassed about this legislation and the performance of the government?

There are five specialist committees that the member for Flinders wanted to refer these bills to: the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics; the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Environment and the Arts; the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture, Resources, Fisheries and Forestry; the Standing Committee on Regional Australia; and the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs. Those committees would have had the necessary skills of members of both sides of the House—certainly there would be opposition members with the necessary skills—to scrutinise the most fundamental change to our economy in Australia's history. But this government said they would truncate that process and instead establish a joint select committee with the most ludicrous composition of a committee that I have ever seen.

The composition of this committee as proposed by the government would see the government having five members, the opposition having four members and the crossbenches having three members. I know that the government frontbenchers cannot count—I know the Leader of the House struggles with his arithmetic—but if we look at the composition of this parliament we find that in the House of Representatives 48 per cent of members are Labor members, 48 per cent are coalition members, 0.7 per cent are Greens members and 3.3 per cent are Independent members, including the member for O'Connor, who was elected on a coalition platform. In the Senate 40 per cent of the members are ALP members, 44.7 per cent are coalition members and 11.8 per cent are Greens members. The DLP is having another run in the park—they have 1.3 per cent of the members of the Senate—and the Independents have 1.3 per cent. In both chambers 45 per cent of the members are Labor, 46.9 per cent are coalition, 4.4 per cent are Greens, 2.2 per cent are Independents, 0.4 per cent are DLP and 0.4 per cent are independent National Party. So on any measure the composition of this committee that is proposed by the government—five members of the government and three members of the cross benches, giving them eight members; and four members from the opposition—is patently ludicrous. The opposition is to have 33 per cent of the members of this joint select committee, yet it represents 47 per cent of the members of both houses. I know the Leader of the House has rigged a few elections internally in the Labor Party over the years and has rigged a few outcomes, but this really takes the cake.

Mr Albanese: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. He should withdraw and apologise. You cannot accuse someone of fraud.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Leader of the House has made his point. The member for Sturt would assist the House if he withdrew that allegation.

Mr PYNE: I withdraw unreservedly.

Quite clearly this is Sussex Street comes to Canberra. This is Tammany Hall comes to Canberra. This is the kind of jackboot democracy we have come to expect from this Leader of the House and this government. We will be moving an amendment to this motion. Our amendment will be that, in paragraph 2, omit:

… two members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips, one Greens member …

and substitute 'three members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the opposition whip or whips'.

That amendment would much more accurately reflect the make-up of the parliament. It would reflect five members of the government, five members of the opposition and two crossbenchers—one Greens and one non-aligned member. That amendment would at least make an attempt to properly reflect the composition of both chambers, and certainly the opposition would regard that as the kind of amendment that should be supported by the crossbenches. Hopefully, the government would see the merits of a composition of this joint select committee that was made up of five members of the government, five members of the opposition, one Greens member and one non-aligned member. That is the amendment that I will be moving at the end of my contribution.

In terms of the precedence for this, it is patently transparent that no joint select committee has been put together in this place that so inaccurately reflects the make-up of the parliament. When the CPRS bills were investigated by the Senate Economics Legislation Committee, there were three members of the ALP, four members of the coalition and two independents in 2009. There have been other examples in recent times where there were much better reflections of the chamber. So I ask the crossbenchers and even the government to support that amendment to this motion.

But I reiterate: if the government were being honest about their carbon tax legislation, their plan for a carbon tax, their change of policy and their breach of faith with the Australian people, they would do what John Howard did. John Howard changed his mind about a goods and services tax, so John Howard announced the policy. He held an election. He won the election. He received a mandate for a goods and services tax. He introduced the legislation. There were inquiries which lasted months—120 days was the length of the inquiry under the goods and services tax. The legislation was then voted on and passed in both houses. That is the process of a Prime Minister who has authority. That is the process of a Prime Minister who has confidence in their own ability and their own argument. He was prepared to take the goods and services tax to the people and ask the people to determine whether they wanted it—and the people said yes. He received a mandate and he introduced a goods and services tax.

This government changes its mind in the dead of the night, decides to introduce a carbon tax, breaks a fundamental promise made to the Australian people before the election and then expects the opposition to support it. We will not. I move the following amendment:

(1) Paragraph 2, omit "two members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips, one Greens member", substitute "three members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips".

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Robb: I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The original question was that the motion be agreed to. To this, the honourable member for Sturt has moved an amendment. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.

Mr COMBET (Charlton—Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency) (17:22): I rise to support the motion in the terms moved by the Leader of the House. Today the government introduced 18 bills as part of the Clean Energy Future package. Of course, these bills will be debated concurrently and ample time will be made available in the period during which the House is sitting in coming days for members to have their say about those bills. It is entirely appropriate to establish a joint select committee in the terms that have been moved by the Leader of the House and on the basis of the structure that has been proposed by the Leader of the House as a manner to deal with this general policy question, which has, of course, been considered by this parliament on many occasions in the past.

In fact, the first inquiry that considered a response to climate change was conducted in the Australian Parliament in 1994—no fewer than 17 years ago. There have been no fewer than 35 parliamentary committee inquiries looking at the issue of climate change and the policy responses that are appropriate in the better part of the last two decades. It has been exhaustively discussed and debated; there have been successive and numerous committees of inquiry of this parliament having a look at this issue in considerable detail. Indeed, the Clean Energy Future package at the centrepiece of it is a carbon pricing mechanism, which is an emissions trading scheme. The first review of emissions trading by an Australian government was in 1999—no fewer than 12 years ago.

There was extensive policy work undertaken by the former Howard government. Those sitting opposite at present were members of that government. The most notable work was undertaken by Professor Peter Shergold—it was exhaustive—and he concluded that pricing carbon was the best approach. It formed the basis of a policy that the coalition took to the 2007 election, a policy that bears remarkable resemblance to many of the features of the government's Clean Energy Future package. It is not possible for those opposite to say that they are unfamiliar with the policy issues, that they have not participated in quite extensive public policy research work, evidence-gathering and stakeholder consultation over recent years, because the fact of the matter is that for the better part of 10 years the coalition have been actively engaged. So, too, have many other parties within this parliament, including, of course, the Greens and Independent members of this House, who have been very actively engaged, particularly over the last 10 months, in consideration of these issues.

There have been numerous inquiries external to the parliament and related to the policy development process. Professor Ross Garnaut has conducted and completed two major reviews on Australia's best policy options for tackling climate change. The government's Multi-Party Climate Change Committee, which includes representatives of the House and of the Senate, met for nine months to consider the development of the Clean Energy Future package. The coalition were invited to participate in the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee, and, of course, they refused. Notwithstanding all of this period—the many years of policy development and policy discussion; the 35 parliamentary inquiries into this area of policy; all of the work of the Shergold review conducted for the Howard government; and the detailed policy, including on emissions trading, that was taken to the 2007 election by the coalition—the coalition have now come to a position where they oppose this policy principle.

Indeed, the talking points that were adverted to in question time today—they were distributed amongst members of the coalition—are quite instructive because they demonstrate the abandonment of market principles in formulating their policy response to this issue.

Opposition members interjecting—

Mr COMBET: If we go back only two years, under the leadership of the member for Wentworth—and the shadow minister for emissions trading, as I recall it, may well have been the member for Goldstein at the time—the coalition entered into agreement with the government about the terms of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

Opposition members interjecting—

Mr COMBET: I can only go on what I have been told. We understand it was considered by the coalition party room and there was agreement on this matter. In fact, I was involved directly in the discussions with the then Leader of the Opposition and the member for Groom from time to time about the nature of that consideration.

At that point in time the Liberal Party were still adhering to market principles in the formulation of economic policy—something, of course, that is fundamentally important and has been a guiding set of principles to the development of economic policy reforms in this country for many, many years. Where are they now? They have retreated to protectionism and xenophobia—absurd subsidies that will do nothing to deliver a price incentive in our economy to cut pollution and drive investment in clean energy. The coalition spent a long time going around the buoy on these policy matters over a very lengthy period of time.

The joint select committee is an entirely appropriate way for the parliament to consider the legislation that has been put forward here in the context of all of the history that I have outlined of the consideration of this particular policy issue. It is appropriately structured, it will consider evidence from various stakeholders—people from the community, businesses, non-government organisations and others who may wish to come forward, make a submission and provide evidence—but it will also be informed by the history that I have pointed to. The coalition members of that committee—those who may be appointed to the membership of the committee by the coalition—could well represent much of the understanding of this policy over recent years. The government members will be well versed in these policy matters. Members of the Greens are proposed, and an Independent member of parliament is proposed, in the structure of that committee.

This is an effective, efficient and appropriate way for the parliament to proceed to examine these bills in a time frame, reporting by 4 October, which also allows adequate opportunity for proper consideration of these matters, the conducting of the inquiries that the committee may wish to pursue and the taking of evidence and submissions. It provides an adequate opportunity for the bills to be properly considered and for all of the history of the evidence and consultation to be taken into account in formulating a report by the proposed reporting date of 4 October, which is in several weeks time. It will be an efficient way for the parliament to deal with the important consideration of these bills.

It is difficult to understand why those opposite would not recognise that that is an appropriate way of dealing with it, although, when one considers the fact that they have already made up their mind and have campaigned on the basis of fear, misinformation, misrepresentation and outright deceit, it is not surprising that all we are going to experience and hear from those opposite is delay, 'no', delaying tactics, and opposing everything the government puts forward to deal efficiently and effectively with these issues in appropriate transparency and accountability. So it is not surprising at all to see the resistance to the motion by the Leader of the House, because we all know that the coalition's mind is made up. It does not matter about the merits of the case. It does not matter about the science. The scientific evidence is absolutely clear that climate change is occurring—that warming is occurring—yet the Leader of the Opposition criticises scientists and will not accept the scientific evidence.

It is also absolutely clear that the most important way of responding to this very diabolical challenge, from a domestic economic and environmental standpoint, is to rely upon a market mechanism for dealing with this. That is the evidence. That is the opinion. That is the fact of the matter. That is what has been submitted by numerous economists for a considerable period of time. It was the subject of consideration by the shadow minister in his thesis 20-odd years ago—the importance of market mechanisms. Yet what do we hear from the opposition? They are not fairly prepared to consider the policy merits of a market mechanism in dealing with this issue. They are not prepared to engage. They are not prepared to be part of the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee, which would have afforded them the last nine months of policy involvement to be engaged in the policy design. They did not want to be involved in that. They now do not support the establishment of a joint select committee for dealing with this particular issue. They have never at any point in recent months been prepared to engage constructively on the policy question. All that they are about is tactics of opposing, of saying no and of refusing to cooperate. That is again informing their approach to the issue of the motion that has been moved by the Leader of the House.

There is a fair deal of hypocrisy in all of this as well, because, albeit I was not a member of the House at the time, I was certainly conscious from my engagement in the political processes of the way in which the Howard government often dealt with pieces of legislation and the way in which they approached their responsibilities when they sat on this side of the House. Many, many times debates were gagged on a number of bills, particularly by the current Leader of the Opposition in his then role as the Leader of the House. Debates were gagged on Telstra privatisation bills, on the Work Choices bill, on anti-terror laws, on migration amendments, on fuel tax bills, on other fuel tax legislation, on tax law amendments, on a new business tax system, on petroleum resource rent tax legislation and on the Australian Research Council. All of this is evidence of the hypocrisy engaged in by those opposite. If they wished to play a constructive role, they would support the motion that is before the House, engage in an efficient way in the consideration of these bills and contribute constructively to the business of this parliament. But all we see is negativity and opposition. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (17:35): I move an amendment to the amendment which has been moved by the Manager of Opposition Business:

That paragraph (2) be amended as follows:

That the committee consist of 14 members, four members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, three members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips, one Greens member, one non-aligned member, two senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, two senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and one Greens senator.

I will speak briefly to my amendment to the amendment. The amendment moved by the Manager of Opposition Business would seek to appoint an additional Liberal member from the House of Representatives to the committee but de-elect the Greens party member from that committee. The government are prepared to show how flexible and reasonable we are prepared to be by allowing an extra Liberal member to be elected to this committee. However, there are things we are not prepared to do, given that the member for Melbourne was an active participant in the MPCCC, something that the opposition declined to participate in. They declined to participate in the process. Now they come along here and, with the comments of the Manager of Opposition Business, have made it very clear that what they are about is just delay, delay and delay, and at the end of it all they will say no. That is their process. They sat on their hands for 12 years in government. They were frozen in time while the world warmed around them. They refused to participate in the processes. They did not just refuse to participate in taking action here in Australia, they refused—after signing the Kyoto protocol—to ratify the Kyoto protocol. This is in spite of the fact that Australia, under Minister Hill, got a very good deal out of the Kyoto protocol at the conference, whereby Australia's target under the Kyoto protocol was 108 per cent. That is because Australia is a high carbon economy.

That situation was acknowledged by the international community and Australia would have been permitted to increase its emissions based upon 1990 levels. But those opposite walked away from it. They said it would destroy the economy if we ratified the Kyoto protocol—and yet they say they met the target. They said it would destroy the economy if we tried to meet the targets—but we met them anyway. That is the illogicality of the position that they have held with regard to taking action on climate change.

Australia is prepared to take action now under this government. This amendment I am moving today will allow the additional member from the opposition to participate in the committee. We are pleased that the opposition has decided to get on board, get with the program, and participate in this joint committee but we will keep an appropriate balance. There will be a member of the opposition appointed and an additional member of the government in order to facilitate that process.

I noticed when the Manager of Opposition Business spoke about committees' composition that the ones he referred to were ones of the Labor government. That is because there is no committee they can point to in the entire time in which they were in office in which the government did not have an absolute majority on that committee. Not one. Not one in 12 years—regardless of the composition in the Senate, regardless of the composition in the House of Representatives and regardless of the composition of the overall parliament. Not one. And we had to indeed take action with the crossbenchers to make sure that the crossbenchers got their share of questions during the parliament, because of the way that they responded.

We have not done that. The amendment to this amendment will ensure that there is proper participation from both houses. It will ensure that the government does not have an absolute majority, so we do not seek to have that imposed on the parliament, but this is a fair amendment to the amendment moved by the member for Sturt. I support the amendment. I will then support the amendment as amended by my motion and then will support the motion before the House.

Mr PYNE (Sturt—Manager of Opposition Business) (17:40): The opposition does not support the latest ruse of the Leader of the House. We do not support an amendment to the amendment because, transparently, adding one member of the opposition and one member of the government does not change the proportions. I know that the government is in hock with the Greens. I know they are in league with the Greens. I know the member for Marrickville is extremely sensitive about upsetting the Greens—

Mr Combet: Grayndler.

Mr PYNE: The member for Grayndler—which covers Marrickville—is particularly concerned about upsetting the Greens. We know that and we know that he will do anything in his power to ensure that the Greens maintain their overrepresentation on this committee.

Mr Oakeshott: One!

Mr PYNE: Two out of three crossbench members. The poor old member for Lyne is a bit slow. The reality is that the proposal being put by the government for this joint select committee establishes five members of the government, four members of the opposition and three members of the crossbenches. Of those three members of the crossbenches two are Greens—one in the Senate and one in the House of Representatives—and one is a non-aligned member. The last time I looked at the proportions in this place and in the Senate there were 10 Greens and seven non-aligned members. That does not equate to having two-thirds of the representatives on this joint select committee.

Transparently, the Leader of the House's amendment to my amendment is a pea and thimble trick. It is a three-card trick. It is designed to fool the crossbenchers into believing that somehow he is changing the proportions on this committee. I have nothing against the member for Melbourne. I do not share all of his political views but as a person I think he is a very fine representative. Of course, I would rather his seat had been won by a Liberal but I am sure he will make a contribution. But whether the member for Melbourne needs to be on this joint select committee—as well as a Greens senator—is, quite frankly in the opposition's view, over-egging the omelette. There is nothing at all wrong with having a joint select committee, if it is to occur, that includes five members of the government, five members of the opposition and two other members that are one Greens senator and one non-aligned member. That proportion more accurately reflects the breakdown of the parliament, including both the Senate and the House of Representatives. In fact, it is understating the representation of the coalition in this present parliament, because we actually have more seats and more senators than the government.

The Leader of the House's amendment to my amendment is designed to fool and trick the parliament and the crossbenchers and we will not support it. This change to our economy is a $27 billion tax raised over the forward estimates. It proposes expenditure of $31 billion and, in addition, a clean energy fund of $10 billion. Why on earth would the government quibble about the length of time that the committee should report? Why would it apply the gag motion to these pieces of legislation and why on earth would it now seek—in the petulant, schoolboy way that we are seeing from the Leader of the House—these Tammany-Hall tactics to amend the opposition's amendment that more accurately reflects the proportions of this parliament?

Of course we will be opposing the government's amendment to my amendment. We would still call on the House to support the amendment that I originally put, which would remove one member from the crossbenches while still maintaining a Greens senator and a non-aligned member and ensure that the opposition has five members and the government has five members. If the government were serious about getting the opposition on board on this policy, if it were serious about trying to convince the parliament and the opposition that it actually had a good case for a carbon tax, it would have no problem with having an inquiry with 12 members—five from the government, five from the opposition and two from the crossbenches.

The reality is that the government does not have the courage of its convictions. It does not have a mandate for a carbon tax. It went to an election on the basis of a policy where there would be no carbon tax—when the Treasurer and the Prime Minister both made that promise—and yet today we are debating a joint select committee being established to inquire into a carbon tax package of bills. Nothing could be a more fundamental breach of faith with the Australian people. We saw in question time today the anger that exists in the community—

Mr Albanese: In the Liberal Party!

Mr PYNE: I agree with the member for Grayndler on one thing: he should get out there and do more arguing the case against these people outside his electorate office. He should argue that case as much as possible, because it is doing the government no end of harm. As I am getting a reasonable score from the member for Windsor, I might take that as a hint he might support my amendment and cut out while I am in front.

Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (17:46): I rise to support the substantive motion and the amendment to the amendment. What we have seen in the course of this debate is the government doing nothing more than showing a generosity of spirit and a willingness to show flexibility and to engage with the opposition in an attempt to have a good debate on this legislation and to engage with the community on this legislation. What we are seeing from the opposition is nothing more than a continuation of their mindless opposition and negativity.

This morning in the parliament we witnessed a historic moment. We witnessed the Prime Minister introduce into this parliament a package of legislation which comes at the end of one of the most extensive debates that has gripped this community in over a decade. Over 18 pieces of legislation form the CEF package, which will once and for all give the opportunity for this parliament to act on climate change and to act in a meaningful and positive way. This legislation will put a price on carbon, and we know that it is important to put a price on carbon because this is the most efficient and effective way for us to transform our economy and to ensure that we can reduce our dependence on carbon and transform our business processes.

But it is not only a package of legislation which puts a price on carbon; it is a package of legislation which assists households through that transformation process. It provides compensation to pensioners and households. It is a historic readjustment of our taxation system for wage and salary earners. The legislation introduced into the House this morning effectively means that over one million Australians will no longer have to put in a tax return because of the increase in the low-income tax threshold. It is a historic piece of legislation and what we are hearing from those opposite, in the context of an international race to modernise our economies, is that we should be handicapped, we should not move ahead to modernise our economy to ensure that we transform the economy in a way that gives us a low-carbon future.

We have a proposition today which enables this parliament to, in an orderly way, consider the package of legislation that comes after one of the most extensive debates that has gripped this parliament and the 42nd Parliament—a process which enables a joint select committee to, over the course of the next fortnight, consider and hear submissions in a detailed way on the legislation which is before the parliament and then report back and have an extensive debate here and in the Senate.

Those opposite oppose it because they are opposed to expertise, they are opposed to knowledge. They are opposed to economists, scientists and Public Servants. They are opposed to receiving any expert advice in this area. We say quite simply that they should get on board; they should get out of the way; they should stop their instinctive habit of just blocking, opposing, delaying, confusing and confounding. They should vote for this motion. They should get on board and vote for the package of legislation which will enable us to move forward.

You can contrast the approach that we are taking with the approach that they on the other side of the House have taken in the past with equally significant pieces of legislation. They rammed the GST legislation through the House without the capacity for debate. They rammed the Work Choices legislation through the House without the capacity for debate. We say that, when you contrast our approach to the approach that they have taken in the past, they are exposed as being nothing more than obstructionist and hypocrites in this matter. They should get out of the way. They should enable this legislation to be debated properly and they should support the motion before the House as amended.

Mr WINDSOR (New England) (17:51): I will speak briefly to the debate that is going on. I have listened with interest to the member for Sturt. We will all hear his voice quite often over the next few weeks, but I think I have come up with a way of shutting him down from time to time. If the member for Sturt does not object and if other members of the House are getting a bit tired of hearing his voice, I might raise that message board occasionally and hopefully he will respond accordingly.

I was a member of the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee. I think it has been discussed already that there was an opportunity for the coalition to be involved—and it is a great shame they were not. Greg Hunt, in particular—as well as Malcolm Turnbull and others—would have been real assets in the debate on this very important reform. I think that history will probably show that they will regret not having been part of the multi-party committee process. I do not mean to say, though, that everyone on the committee agreed with everyone else. I think it is common knowledge that the minister and I had some disagreements over various road transport initiatives which, it was claimed, would have lead to some sort of behavioural change but which in my view would not have done.

But I think having been on the committee and having been part of what has ended up being quite a successful agreement has meant that, although there are still a couple of loose ends that will probably be tied up in the committee process and in the parliament itself, we have been able to come together and assist in getting a formula together. That is not an easy thing to do. It is not an easy reform and it is not short-term; it is very long-term in nature. Therefore, the way that we did it was different to the gratuitous political arrangements by which we normally do things in here for short-term benefit and for our own benefit as political players. With this legislation, parts of the parliament are trying to do something good for people—the future generations of this country—who have not even been born yet.

It is a great tragedy that the debate has been bogged down by the use of the words 'tax' and 'lie'. It is common knowledge that John Howard was going to apply a tax or fixed price leading into an emissions trading scheme. It is common knowledge that Malcolm Turnbull was going to have a fixed price—or a tax, as people prefer to call it now—leading into an emissions trading scheme. The situation is similar in the current parliament. I use the word 'parliament' because the government is in a minority position. I am sure that, like me, the Prime Minister would have preferred an emissions trading scheme to a fixed price. But, in order to get the institutional arrangements in place, there would still have had to be a period where there was a fixed price—and that, by the definition of economists at least, is strictly a tax. So, even though everybody is virtually on the same page, the debate is still being degraded by arguments about a 'tax' and a 'lie'. Although all that may be very interesting in terms of the politics of this place, I do not think it is very interesting in terms of the future of this country and particularly the future of the globe and the role that Australia can play.

I remember that under the former government this parliament went to war before the debate was finished, and I was offended by that as a member of parliament who was on the list to speak about whether we should go to war. The Prime Minister of the day declared war without representatives of various communities being given the chance to have their say. People may suggest that things do not happen in a hurry, but they occasionally do when there is a political advantage to be gained.

I say to the member for Sturt and others that, although there is a lot of talk about the representation of the various parties on the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee, the government do not have the majority. I give this undertaking: if the coalition or any other member of the parliament has a constructive agenda to address by way of amendments the real issue of climate change and how we can play a role in bringing in a cleaner future—I do not mean nonsense amendments to delay—I would be more than happy to look constructively at those amendments even if there is a requirement for an extension of time or for other arrangements to be put in place, and I am sure that others on the crossbenches would be happy to do so as well.

We are going to have a period of debate now about a very serious issue, and I think the debate should be serious—we should actually talk about this issue. It is a great shame that, due to the way that the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee was initially put together, the coalition did not want to be part of it. The constructive debate that took place there happened only among those who were involved, despite the fact that there were differences of opinion. I have given an undertaking to the member for Sturt and others provided that they have legitimate concerns and there is not sufficient time. However, if they are considering some sort of speak-it-out arrangement in order to delay, I will not be supporting any extensions. The ball is really in the court of the coalition members.

I know there are a number of coalition members, because a lot of them have come to see me, who are concerned about this issue, and I hope to hear very constructive contributions from them. I am sure that the minister would agree—though he may not—that those on the MPCCC do not pretend to be the holders of all knowledge on the subject. If there are legitimate issues that need to be addressed through the committee process or in the parliament during the third reading, let us see those issues come out as the debate takes place. In conclusion, when it comes to a vote, I will be supporting the amendment to the amendment.

Mr HUNT (Flinders) (17:58): We oppose the ruse by the Leader of the House. It is transparently an attempt to maintain a significant disadvantage for the opposition. I begin with simple facts: the ALP has 103 members or 45.6 per cent of the composition of the parliament; the coalition has 106 members or 46.9 per cent of the composition of the parliament; the Greens have 10 members or 4.4 per cent of the composition of the parliament; and the Independents have three per cent of the composition of the parliament. The ratio proposed for membership of this committee under the original situation contained within the Leader of the House's motion is that the ALP would have one member for every 9.1 per cent of the parliamentary representation. The coalition would have one member for every 11.7 per cent of our quota of the total parliament. The Greens would have one member for every 2.2 per cent—or five times more than the coalition has in terms of its ratio. The Independents would have one for every three per cent of the total quota of parliamentary representatives.

The change which we propose would maintain the ALP at one for every 9.1 per cent of the parliament. The coalition would improve, to one for every 9.4 per cent of the parliament—still the worst representation of any grouping within this parliament. The Greens would return to one for every 4.4 per cent, but still about 2½ times better on a ratio basis than the representation of the coalition. The Independents would maintain the best representation, at one for every three per cent of the total parliamentary quota. So, in terms of pure equity, we put ourselves in the most disadvantageous position—even with our amendment. The amendment proposed by the Leader of the House to our amendment simply enshrines a systemic disadvantage and a massive over-representation of the Greens. It is neither fair nor equitable; nor does it assist the business of this parliament in any meaningful way. This is the debate that you have when you do not have an election to determine a mandate based on an honest rendering of policy.

At the last election the Prime Minister of Australia said, on the Monday before that election, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead', and on the day before the election she said, 'I rule out a carbon tax.' I want to repeat that: 'I rule out a carbon tax.' This was not a minor, passing commentary; it was repeated twice by the Treasurer of Australia, who ridiculed the concept that this ALP could ever introduce a carbon tax. It was a fundamental mandate not to introduce a carbon tax, fundamentally broken after the election. These were not minor undertakings. These were sacred pledges taken to the Australian people, at the forefront of national debate, in the final week of an election period, made by no less a person than the Prime Minister of Australia, the leader of the ALP, and these pledges were thereafter broken unnecessarily. There was no need for that undertaking to be broken, because on the night of the election the Greens pledged their support to an ALP government. On the night of the election, the member for Melbourne pledged support to an ALP government. That means that the entire rationale for breaking that fundamental sacred pledge which the Prime Minister took to the election has no basis. In other words, it was a direct, deliberate deception. There was no need, no requirement, no duty, no pressure to break that pledge to the Australian people, because the member for Melbourne said on election night: 'I'll support the ALP.' How can this government proceed on the basis of a fundamental deception?

The point is twofold. Firstly, the Australian people know this was a deception and therefore there was a breach of faith on a grand basis. Secondly, the consequence is that they will pay the price for the destructive impact of this tax on their lives, their livelihoods and in particular the manufacturing processes of Australia. I note here that, of all the countries in the world, there is no comparable system. China is going through a period of the fastest growth in emissions in history. Between 1990 and 2020 its emissions are increasing 496 per cent. It is not about to introduce a systemic carbon tax. It is going through a period of an increase in coal consumption from 2002 to 2015—contrary to the assertions of the Prime Minister—from 1.4 billion tonnes to four billion tonnes. This is the fastest growth in coal consumption in human history. There is no dispute and no debate about that. Even if the Prime Minister might try to represent the change from small, inefficient coal-fired power stations to massive power stations as some form of win for the environment, it is not. It is about increasing the amount of emissions which China is producing on a grand, systemic and unparalleled scale.

In India, we are seeing an increase in emissions of approximately 350 per cent between 1990 and 2020. In the United States, most significantly, there will be no cap-and-trade system, no carbon tax system, no system comparable to that which is proposed by the Australian government. The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative is bumping along at a floor price of approximately $1.89. The Western Climate Initiative has gone from more than 20 potential members to seven potential members to a situation where really only California is proceeding in any significant way. If the United States does not have a national cap-and-trade scheme then neither will Canada. Japan has deferred its system and Korea has deferred its system.

And that brings me to Europe, where the Minerals Council has produced very interesting work which shows that Australia has an annual rate of tax which will be the best part of 18 times that which the European Union has had. The only difference beyond that is that the European Union has a population of 500 million people and the Australian land mass has a population of 22.6 million people. It means that we will be charging almost $400 per head of population under the carbon tax the Prime Minister said Australia would never have, and Europe will charge people just over a dollar per person per year. We are seeing a situation of an almost 400 times greater levy per head of population.

That is why this debate is about giving the Australian people a genuine say through the parliamentary process and a genuine vote through a proper and exhaustive debate on the floor of the parliament. The floor of the parliament will see approximately one minute of debate per member per bill allocated. That is one minute per member per bill for a massive rise in electricity, gas and grocery prices. That is not democratic practice; that is a fraud upon democracy. Let us look at the committee process, at the very issue contained within the amendments. The point of the committee process should be to give the joint select committee, which spans both houses of parliament, comparable representation to the parties that have been elected by the people of Australia. The point about comparable representation is, firstly, that during the GST debate there were four specialist committees in the Senate. We believe there should be five specialist committees in the House, and we would be willing to discuss and compromise on those. We believe that that would be an appropriate approach given the magnitude and scope and reach of these bills. Secondly, in terms of the composition of the joint select committee, as I said at the outset, the ALP has 103 members, or 45.6 per cent of the parliament; the coalition has 106 members, or 46.9 per cent; the Greens have 10 members, or 4.4 per cent; and the Independents have seven members, or three per cent.

We seek a situation where the coalition would still have the lowest ratio of members of the committee compared with members of the parliament. We would have one member for every 9.4 per cent of the parliament, the ALP would have one for every 9.1 per cent of their parliamentary representation, the Greens would have one for every 4.4 per cent, and the Independents would have one for every three per cent. That is an equitable deal; that is a fair deal. What the Leader of the House proposes is unfair, inequitable and consistent with the practice of denying proper discussion prior to an election, and denying proper discussion of this legislation, whether it is through the inquiry process or through debate on the floor of the parliament.

Question put:

That the amendment (Mr Albanese's) to the proposed amendment (Mr Pyne's) be agreed to.

The House divided. [18:13]

(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)

Question agreed to.

Question put:

That the amendment (Mr Pyne's), as amended, be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The SPEAKER: The question now is that the motion, as amended, be agreed to.

Mr HUNT (Flinders) (18:18): This is the debate you have when you do not have an election mandate. This is a debate about proper representation, because this government went to the election on a fundamental act of dishonesty. It pledged, as the Prime Minister said with her most sacred words, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' It was a moment of fundamental deception of the Australian people. Against that background, every member of this government knows that they went to the election on a pledge not to introduce a carbon tax. It was not a minor or incidental or passing discussion in the course of the last week. It was the focus of the fundamental debate at the core of the push for a mandate from the Australian people. The Prime Minister of Australia said there would be no carbon tax under the government she leads. The Prime Minister of Australia, 24 hours before the election, said that she ruled out a carbon tax, and the reason she did that was she knew the Australian people would not give her a mandate if she did other than reject a carbon tax prior to the election; otherwise, why did she need to make that statement? She made that statement knowing that her intention, her goal and her desire was to introduce a carbon tax. It was an act of deception, it was an act which was holding the Australian people in contempt and it was utterly unnecessary.

Against that background, there are two great issues at stake in this debate. One is about representation of the people through the inquiry process. One is about representation of the Australian public. This inquiry process matters because it is about giving the people their chance to have a say. That is why we are seeking, with the consent of the Independents, to have the inquiry process extended. Therefore, I move:

Paragraph (12), omit "4 October 2011", substitute "7 October 2011".

The SPEAKER: Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Pyne: I second the amendment, Mr Speaker.

The SPEAKER: The question is that the amendment moved by the member for Flinders be agreed to.

Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (18:21): On behalf of the government, I accept this amendment and say the government will be supporting it. This is an amendment that changes 4 October 2011 to 7 October 2011. If those opposite want less time between when the committee reports and when the parliament debates the report, then so be it. So we are prepared to accept the amendment. In the spirit of good faith, cooperation and generosity of spirit that characterise the way that this government is dealing with this matter, I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr PYNE (Sturt—Manager of Opposition Business) (18:22): I support the amendment moved by the member for Flinders, and I think it is important to explain exactly the newest ruse of the government with respect to the inquiry into the carbon tax legislation. We have already traversed this debate at some length this afternoon. The original reporting date of 4 October is the first day of the tax summit. Clearly, the government set that date for its joint select committee because it wanted to ensure that, whatever this report from the Joint Select Committee on Australia’s Clean Energy Future Legislation finds, the tax summit would obliterate any media coverage of it.

The Leader of the House is very good at these tricky mechanisms which are designed to protect the government from its very bad decision to break the election promise it made before the last election and to introduce a carbon tax. We, on the other hand, believe that when this joint select committee reports, the media should be given the full opportunity to view and report on the scrutiny that this joint select committee will give to the 19 pieces of legislation—over 1,000 pages—that the government has introduced today.

We in the opposition have already expressed our grave disappointment at the handling of this matter by the government and the fact that they intend to gag the debate on this important legislative package—and, in an unprecedented way, they are, I believe, being supported in that, unfortunately, by the crossbenchers. They have already this afternoon established a joint select committee with proportions that give the government, the crossbenchers and the Greens a tremendous advantage, far beyond the proportions that they enjoy in both chambers of this parliament. Just to highlight the decision that has just been made: of the 14 members of the joint select committee, nine are in favour of the carbon tax and five are against. I hardly believe that that represents a fair proportion of the views in this parliament, where the coalition is represented in more seats and more Senate places than the Labor Party, which forms the government.

So the reason that I support the amendment moved by member for Flinders is that, in my view, the government should not be given the opportunity of (1) gagging the debate; (2) avoiding the selection committee process; (3) stopping the scrutiny of these 19 bills by the five specialist committees of this House of Representatives that I outlined before; and (4) burying, on the same day as the tax summit—that is, 4 October—the report of this joint select committee. Therefore, I commend this amendment to the House.

Question agreed to.

Question put:

That the motion (Mr Albanese's), as amended, be agreed to.

The House divided. [18:30]

(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)

Question agreed to.