Senator KROGER: by leave—At the request of Senator Fisher, I move:

That the Environment and Communications References Committee be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate today, from 9.35 am.

Question agreed to.

Senator ABETZ (Tasmania—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (10:28): I seek leave to move a motion of censure in the following terms, 'That this Senate censure the Labor-Green alliance's unprincipled use of their numbers to stifle debate that involves the national interest.'

Leave not granted.

Senator ABETZ: I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion of censure of the Labor-Green alliance's unprincipled use of their numbers to stifle debates that involve the national interest.

Five out of six senators from each state of the Commonwealth of Australia were elected at the last election on a promise of no carbon tax. Two out of two senators for each of the territories were elected on a promise of no carbon tax. One hundred and forty-eight members out of the 150 House of Representatives members were elected on a promise of no carbon tax.

So today the Australian people are quite rightly asking: why is it that the carbon tax legislation has been carried through the House of Representatives? There is nobody in Australia who believes that Ms Gillard would be the Prime Minister of this great nation if she had said there would be a carbon tax under a government she led. With six days to go before the last election, with the polls indicating a very, very close result, Ms Gillard and the Labor Party collectively stared down the camera lens and said to the Australian people, broadcast into their living rooms through the mechanism of a television, that there would be no carbon tax.

They have betrayed the Australian people. They have deceived the Australian people. When we said at the last election that you could not trust Labor on this, they got out their hapless Deputy Leader, Mr Swan, who said we were being hysterical. Today we know we were historical, because history has recorded that Labor has done exactly that which we predicted. What is the saying: Oh, what tangled webs we weave when we set out to deceive? That is what Labor have got themselves into. Having deceived the Australian electorate, they are now entangling themselves more and more in the corruption of the democratic process in this country. That is why they cannot accept any debate on this matter. That is why they want to stifle and gag debate.

We also have the Australian Greens, those great champions of freedom of speech—except when it attacks the Greens. Then we will have an inquiry into the media and they will have an inquiry into whatever else. Senator Brown could not even defend the Greens' position. That is why—possibly in a disorderly manner, Mr Deputy President—I said to the Leader of the Australian Greens that the tie he is wearing today is very apt, except that it should have been on his back, because that yellow stripe of cowardice is what the Greens have displayed today by not being willing to justify on the public record why they have moved the gag on a matter that is so important.

Let us not forget the carbon issue was sold to the Australian people originally as the 'greatest moral challenge of our time'. It now seems the 'greatest moral challenge of our time' somehow allows the greatest deceit of our time; the greatest, unprincipled and unprecedented gagging of debate in this Senate somehow is allowed. The simple fact is the Labor Party can twist and turn as much as it likes, but members know that the only reason that they are in government, albeit by their fingernails, is that they promised there would be no carbon tax—something that they are now trying to ram through this place in such an unprincipled manner that they would gag debate. They have done so twice already today.

If the carbon tax is such a great policy and initiative, why did not Labor say that during the last election? What was their difficulty in saying to the people of Australia: 'This is a great idea and we will implement it. We will do it.' They said the exact opposite. Confronted with their deception of the Australian electorate, they are compounding their unprincipled behaviour by seeking to gag every single debate in relation to this matter. We will not stand for it. We will, as a coalition, stand up for the Australian people. We will give expression to their voice as they want it heard, unlike what Labor and the Greens did in cutting out all those submissions to the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Clean Energy Future Legislation. (Time expired)

Senator CHRIS EVANS (Western Australia—Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (10:35): Generally, you can judge a contribution by the level of sound and fury and the absence of facts. Senator Abetz really does take the cake. He seeks to censure the government on the basis of us seeking to facilitate debate on the clean energy bills. The Liberal-Nationals opposition have made it clear that they will oppose everything. They will seek to delay, filibuster and do anything they can procedurally to prevent the debate. Why? Because they have nothing to contribute to the debate. They have nothing to say. They have no amendments, no constructive contribution to the debate. All they can do is hide behind delay, delay, delay and procedural arguments. They have nothing to say about the policy.

For Senator Abetz and the Liberal Party to come in here and try to lecture us about abuse of the Senate and about the procedural matters of the Senate is an absolute disgrace. What a hide for you to come into this chamber, Senator Abetz, and try to lecture us. We remember Work Choices and the way you rammed through legislation week after week, month after month, abusing your majority in this place.

Senator Ian Macdonald: I rise on a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. Senator Evans has been here long enough to realise that he should not be addressing senators individually across the chamber and that his remarks should be through the chair. I ask you to bring him to order.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Ludlam ): I ask the minister to pay the usual courtesies.

Senator CHRIS EVANS: Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I again highlight the fact that all the Liberal Party has to contribute to this debate is process, points of order and delay. Do you know what we are debating? We have already debated this morning to extend the hours, which the Liberal Party opposed, in order to ensure that we can bring into this parliament the clean energy bills—the bills that were passed in the House of Representatives half an hour ago. We have given the Liberal opposition months of warning about these bills. The time frame was made public months ago and the opposition have known exactly the plan for bringing them before the parliament. We have scheduled an extra week of the parliament to facilitate debate on the bills. The procedure and the time frame have all been laid out. The Liberal Party's position is that they oppose everything. They do not have anything to contribute but they are going to try to prevent the parliament debating these bills. They are continuing their policy of trying to prevent this parliament dealing with legislation. The parliament saw an outrageous filibuster on the student services legislation as senator after senator came in not to debate amendments, not to debate the subject matter, but to delay the Senate dealing with it. We have had more MPIs moved by this opposition than any other opposition in the history of the parliament. We have had less legislative time than any other government because the Liberal opposition have taken every opportunity to delay the legislative program.

Today we have a debate about process, as the opposition demonstrate once again that all they have is the ability to oppose. All they have is negativity and opposition but they have nothing to say about policy, nothing to say about the great debates that this country is engaged in. The Labor government make it clear that we are facilitating debate on these bills. We are allowing the Senate the time needed to enable all senators to debate these bills. The reason we have to move these procedural motions is to ensure that that debate occurs. We will move more motions to facilitate debate. We made an offer to the opposition to have a cooperative approach on this, and that was knocked back. I made the offer to Senator Abetz to allow every senator to make a proper contribution to the debate. But they have not agreed to that, and they have rejected that approach. They have been told by their leader, Mr Abbott, to oppose, oppose, oppose; disrupt, disrupt, disrupt. They have been told to contribute nothing but opposition to the debate. The government will continue to pursue the procedures that allow us to facilitate proper debate in the Senate, and the Liberal opposition have to decide whether they have anything constructive to contribute to the debate. (Time expired)

Senator JOYCE (Queensland—Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (10:40): It is a disgusting day when the Greens, who were the paragons of virtue and were allowing open and transparent debate to enable all sections of the chamber to take part in the carbon tax debate, become part of a guillotine process so that one political party in Australia and the Independents cannot be part of the debate—no-one can be part of the debate because the Greens have changed. It is a new paradigm. The paragons of virtue have now descended the greasy pole to be just like everybody else. I bet there are a few Democrat voters out there who wonder where they have ended up in supporting the Greens. There used to be a sense of honour in here, but they have taken it and trashed it.

Just like the deceit with the carbon tax, they are saying one thing while being something else. The Greens today have shown that they say one thing out there but are entirely something else. When leave was sought for the making of a brief statement, even that was denied. That is where this whole debate has got to. They are running and hiding because this whole tax is such a debacle, such a fiasco. It is disturbing that, because the Greens have chosen to adopt this attitude, we are denying not just political parties but the people of Australia the chance to be involved in and hear the debate in all its complexity, with all its nuances. The Greens exude this almost nauseating faux nobility, but when you put them to the test it is the same party that denied Annette Harding the chance to have an inquiry into her rape and it is the same party that is now denying opportunity for debate. That is the Greens; that is who we have; that is what they have become.

The Australian people are very uneasy about this carbon tax. We had a demonstration in support of the tax out the front of Parliament House, but there were more placards than people—no-one turns up; the support is all contrived. In a couple of weeks time I am going to sell a mob of cattle and I am going to tell the truck driver to take them to Dubbo. I expect the cattle to end up in Dubbo. I will certainly be disappointed if he decides instead to take them to Weabonga and just let them go in the hills. It is exactly the same thing—when you have a contract with the Australian people, their expectation is that you will take them to a certain position, and the position this government said it would take them to was that there would be no carbon tax under the government this Prime Minister led. Instead, the government took the people to the hills and just let them go. Then Graham Perrett goes out and says they will not change the truck driver. It does not matter about the truck driver; it is the destination that matters—in this case the destination that those opposite are taking this nation.

This is why it is so vital that we turn this around. In these times of uncertainty, with what we are seeing in Europe and what we are seeing America, what the government is doing to this nation is culpable. Those opposite know that and that is why they are guillotining; that is why they are shutting down debate; that is why they are not allowing the Australian people to have their proper say. It is ludicrous to say that we have had a chance to look at this legislation. We have not. The government has wrapped it and stacked it and brought it in here in a bundle. If we asked those opposite to quote sections of it or to go to the pertinent parts of it, they would not know it themselves—they would not have a clue. It is going to come in here because they want out—they have other things to deal with. They have to work out whether Mr Rudd is coming back and whether he is going to take out the Prime Minister. This is the whole soap opera that our nation has become under these people. It is a disgusting, hopeless approach to government. Every facet of this government is now a total and utter debacle.

What about regional Australia? The government inquiry went to Melbourne and to Sydney and to Canberra, but who did they talk to? They talked to their mates. The big banks are going to be happy—soon they are going to get this massive commission stream which the Greens will bring into place. The Greens are supporters of big banks and big banks' commissions. I am surprised to see Senator Rhiannon is going to be supporting the big banks in getting billions of dollars of commissions out of struggling working families, out of people who currently cannot afford their power and out of people who currently cannot afford the daily necessities of life.

This is where the nation is going. Is it going to change the climate? No. We have asked Minister Wong this question 600 times and never once have we got an answer. How much will this change the temperature of the globe? The answer is absolutely not at all. It is merely a gesture and in the cruellest form will be delivered to people who cannot afford it. They are going to be lumbered with it for life, and the absolute insult is they listen to you now and they are hearing you shut down the debate because you are scared. You are running, but you are not going to hide—we are going to flush you out.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (10:45): Here we have the opposition complaining about the use of the guillotine and the gag. We have done some research and established that the Howard government used the guillotine 116 times—let me repeat that: 116 times—for such legislation as the Telstra privatisation legislation; the migration excision legislation; the wheat marketing legislation; Work Choices, which I will come back to in a minute; Welfare to Work and the Northern Territory emergency response. In other words, the opposition have used this guillotine many times. I know they will complain about amendments being brought in, but who remembers, under Work Choices, 100 pages of amendments being delivered 20 minutes before we started the debate in committee? The opposition knows how this place works. They have been there and they have done it before, so to start carrying on about its use when 116 times—

Opposition senators interjecting—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Ludlam ): Order! Senator Joyce and Senator Abetz were heard in silence. I ask that you extend the same courtesy to Senator Siewert.

Senator SIEWERT: They say there has not been enough time to debate. We were talking about it yesterday and we know there have been 35 inquiries, the most recent of which was reported just yesterday, where the opposition took the opportunity to talk yet again about the carbon tax. We have had an MPI basically every sitting day this year in which we have been talking about the carbon tax. Just yesterday we had another hour, and guess what? The debate and the comments are all the same; there is nothing new. They do not bring up something new; they are just saying the same thing over and over again. They had another hour yesterday and we are going to have another hour again today to talk about the economic and employment opportunities that would be foregone as a result of the Gillard government's carbon tax—it is essentially the same. The rule in here, for people who do not know, is that you have to have a different motion every day, so they change a few of the words and say the same thing. I could have written the script yesterday for what is going to be said today, because they do not come up with anything new. They are just using it as an excuse because they do not like the policy. They are using it as an excuse to say the same thing over and over again.

We have spent nearly 1½ hours this morning with the opposition trying to block extension of hours. All the legislation that I just talked about had extension of hours. The opposition has blocked extension of hours on more than one occasion. This morning they were trying to do the same thing again. We sat for hours in this place until very late in the evening talking about the pieces of legislation that I have just articulated when the opposition were in government, so they know very well that they are using this to block an important debate on carbon legislation that has far-reaching implications. Yes, we know it has far-reaching implica­tions because we need to accept that we need to change the way we do business in this country if we are going to address this absolutely imperative issue. As I said, they do not come up with anything new; they just say the same thing over and over again.

Like Janelle Saffin said the other place last night: it is like Groundhog Day. I thought it was a very good example to use. The point she made is that in Groundhog Day Bill Murray actually learned each time it came around. The opposition do not seem to learn. They are still buried in the dinosaur past. They are not looking at what the opportunities are or the way we need to move forward in this country. I suppose that is what they want to do. They just want to keep entrenching business as usual and not put in place measures as to how we can develop in the future. People can see what those opposite are up to.

Senator Cormann interjecting—

Senator SIEWERT: Senator Cormann, if you want to have a say then put yourself next on the list.

Senator Cormann: I am on the list. What a good idea.

Senator SIEWERT: Fortunately there are only two more speaking spots left on this. As I said, the opposition have used this guillotine 116 times for legislation that also had far-reaching impacts.

Senator Brandis: How many times did you vote for it?

Senator SIEWERT: How many times do I have to keep repeating this? We have had a lot of debate on this and we are going to have two more weeks of debate—we have put aside an extra week to ensure that we are talking about this some more. They will have plenty of time to explore this legislation, as they have had in other inquiries. They did not participate adequately in a number of the opportunities that were provided to them to thoroughly explore this because they were so entrenched in opposing it rather than looking at exploring how this will make a difference.

Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (10:50): I will only need a minute of the Senate's time to set up my position in relation to this motion. For the 11 or so people who may be listening on NewsRadio in relation to this, what is at stake here is whether there ought to be a suspension of standing orders to debate the coalition's censure motion. That is the issue; it is a procedural motion. I think there ought to be a suspension of standing orders. Whether you agree or disagree with the intent of the censure motion it is an important issue and there ought to be debate on it. It is a fundamental issue. It does not mean that I necessarily support the censure motion in its current form, but I do have serious reservations about the way that this debate has been handled and the fact that there will not be a Senate committee to look at this, as is normally the case with such fundamental pieces of legislation.

It does not matter who guillotined what, who guillotined whom over previous legislation or who did what to whom. The issue is: is it fair? Is it reasonable that there be a debate on a censure motion? In order to do that you need a suspension of standing orders. It is a fundamentally important issue, whether you agree or disagree with the censure motion. I believe this Senate ought to agree to a suspension of standing orders to deal with such a contentious and important issue.

Senator CORMANN (Western Australia) (10:52): The Gillard Labor government is treating the Australian people with absolute contempt. There can be no more emphatic promise made by a Prime Minister in the shadow of an election—five days away from an election—than the promise made by the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, when she said, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' And, of course, this morning in the House of Representatives Labor members were kissing and dancing, celebrating in the aisles, celebrating their betrayal of the Australian people.

This whole debate about the carbon tax, as the Prime Minister wanted to remind us today, has been going on for some time. This has been debated over the last three or four years. The Australian people were entitled to believe that the Prime Minister had come around to their view. The Australian people were entitled to believe, in the lead-up to the last election, that the Prime Minister, having debated the arguments for and the arguments against a carbon tax, had come to the view that a carbon tax was not in the national interest. Given the debate over the three years of the last parliament and given the emphatic promise made by the Prime Minister and repeated by the Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer in the lead-up to the last election, the Australian people, as they were casting their ballot papers, were entitled to believe that the Prime Minister, having listened to all of the arguments, had agreed with their judgment that the carbon tax was a bad tax which would do nothing to reduce emissions, would push up the cost of everything, would reduce our international competitiveness, would cost jobs, would result in lower real wages while prices went up and would shift emissions overseas. But we now know that, in order to hold onto government, in order to hold onto power, the Prime Minister had to give in to the demands of the Australian Greens, who were the only political party going into the last election campaigning on the promise of a carbon tax. And here we are.

The lie continues today. This is what the Prime Minister said on radio in South Australia at seven o'clock this morning: 'The carbon tax is going to ensure we cut carbon pollution by 160 million tonnes in 2020.' I refer to the Treasury's own modelling. Do not take my word for it. I refer you to table 5.1, 'Headline national indicators', in the government's own Treasury modelling, on page 88. What does it say? It says that CO2 emissions in 2010 were 578 million tonnes. What does it say about the expectations under the carbon tax, described here as the 'core policy scenario'? In 2020, CO2 emissions would be 621 million tonnes. By my calculation, that is an increase of 43 million tonnes in CO2 emissions in Australia after the carbon tax has been imposed by this government. The cutesy, spinning sort of argument that the government puts is that emissions are going to be lower than they otherwise would have been. Emissions continue to grow under the carbon tax but they will grow by less.

Let us go to the next part of the interview that the Prime Minister gave in South Australia today. She then said: 'Under the carbon tax, we will continue to see incomes grow. Average incomes will go up by $9,000 to 2020.' Let us go back to the Treasury modelling to see what the Treasury modelling says about that. I invite people to go to chart 5.12, 'Real wages'. Real wages under the carbon tax are going to go down by just under six per cent. Real wages will be about six per cent lower under the carbon tax by 2050. And there is no end in sight. If you look at that chart, the line keeps going down and down and down. It goes off the graph. But here we have a Prime Minister who says that real wages are going up.

Let us work on the assumption that average incomes will go up. Full-time average incomes today are $70,000 a year. That means that the carbon tax will impose a $4,000 pay cut, effectively, in today's dollars. This is the ongoing deceit of this government. It is going on right now as we speak. Right now, the government still cannot tell the truth about their carbon tax. This is why they are running away from the debate. This is why they want to shut down the Senate debate on this—because they are embarrassed by how bad this legislation is, legislation which will do nothing for the environment. (Time expired)

Senator LUDWIG (Queensland—Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Minister Assisting the Attorney-General on Queensland Floods Recovery) (10:57): The government has this morning spent an hour and a half dealing with procedural motions only. There are substantive bills on the Notice Paper that I would encourage senators to turn their minds to so that we can deal with the legislative agenda in the Senate rather than continue to have this confected opposition debate on the carbon price legislation. All the government is asking the opposition to agree with today is that the bills be introduced into the Senate so that they can be dealt with as a message today and we can then have them available for debate in the next two weeks. The opposition now have taken the view that they are going to flop to the floor like the Liberal dead body and say: 'We're not going to do anything. We're going to just throw out the anchor and try to drag everything down. We will not engage in the debate; we will simply say no.' That is characteristic of Mr Abbott in this whole debate. All Mr Abbott wants to do is say no, no, no—no policy debate, simply a no. He is completely oppositional, without any policy—simply say no. The opposition here today are doing that. They are picking up Mr Abbott's 'Just say no' policy—

Senator Abetz: 'Mr Abbott' to you.

Senator LUDWIG: I said 'Mr Abbott', in fact, for those of the opposition who are listening. They are not listening to the debate. They only want to say no on this issue.

I will deal with some of the substantive matters that the opposition have raised. In a debate such as this, it is incumbent on those opposite to actually construct an argument and to come to the debate with clean hands. Let us look at the record of the opposition when they were in government:

Telstra bills: guillotined applied and the gag used three times and Family First Senator Steve Fielding was denied the opportunity to speak;

11 October 2005: debate over variation of routine of business and sitting hours gagged twice;

3 November 2005: debate gagged on hours and routine of business;

8 November: gag used over Labor's proposed amendments to the reference of the Work Choices inquiry;

1 December: Work Choices legislation guillotined and debate gagged;

5 December: Anti-terror bill and two welfare bills guillotined and gagged.

There was also one circumstance where:

… Australian Democrats Senator Andrew Bartlett had to debate Telstra legislation he had not seen and comment on the minister's second reading speech that had not been read to the parliament and had been tabled only 30 seconds before.

Those quotes are on page 80 of the essay 'The Senate a paper tiger', in the book Howard's Fourth Government: Australian Commonwealth Administration 2004-2007. In addition to that:

… Work Choices legislation was given to non-government senators only half an hour before the debate began, and consideration of the 1252-page bill was compressed into a five-day committee inquiry and five days of Senate debate … amendments were introduced by the government just 35 minutes before the government guillotined debate.

That is what the opposition has stood for. This government created a Multi-Party Climate Change Committee that met for nine months on this issue before completing its work in July The opposition were invited to participate on the committee but chose not to because they simply want to say no. They have no policy; they simply want to continue to be obstructionist and say no, rather than engage in debate. (Time expired)

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Ludlam ): Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The question is that the standing orders be suspended.

The Senate divided. [11:05]

(The President—Senator Hogg)

Senator Collins did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Coonan.

Question negatived.

Senator SIEWERT: by leave—I move:

That the time for the presentation of the report of the Community Affairs References Committee on the review of the Professional Services Review Scheme be extended to 1 November 2011.

Question agreed to.

Senator KROGER: by leave—I move:

That the time for the presentation of the report of the Rural Affairs and Transport References Committee on the live export trade, and the Live Animal Export (Slaughter) Prohibition Bill 2011 [No. 2] and the Live Animal Export Restriction and Prohibition Bill 2011 [No. 2], be extended to 9 November 2011.

Question agreed to.

Senator McEWEN: by leave—I move:

That the Joint Standing Committee on the National Broadband Network be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Thursday, 13 October 2011, from 9.30 am till 11 am.

Question agreed to.

Senator KROGER: by leave—At the request of Senator Boyce, I move:

That the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate today, from 4.45 pm, to take evidence for the committee’s inquiry into the statutory oversight of the operations of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission.

Question agreed to.

Senator SIEWERT: by leave—At the request of Senator Hanson-Young, I move:

That the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Immigration Detention Network be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Tuesday, 22 November 2011, from 4 pm.

Question agreed to.

Senator SIEWERT: by leave—I move:

That the time for the presentation of the report of the Community Affairs References Committee on regulatory standards for the approval of medical devices be extended to 8 November 2011.

Question agreed to.

Senator KROGER: by leave—At the request of Senator Fisher, I move:

That the time for the presentation of the report of the Environment and Communications References Committee on recent programming decisions made by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation be extended to 13 October 2011.

Question agreed to.

Senator KROGER: by leave—At the request of Senator Macdonald, I move:

That the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity be authorised to hold an in camera hearing during the sitting of the Senate on Thursday, 13 October 2011, from 11 am to noon.

Question agreed to.

Senator McEWEN (South Australia—Government Whip in the Senate) (15:41): At the request of Senator Bishop, I ask that general business notice of motion No. 473, authorising that private and public meetings be held during the sitting of the Senate, be taken as a formal motion.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to the motion being taken as formal?

Opposition senators: Yes.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: There is objection.

Senator McEWEN (South Australia—Government Whip in the Senate) (15:41): At the request of Senator Singh, I ask that general business notice motion No. 475, authorising that a public meeting be held during the sitting of the Senate, be taken as a formal motion.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to the motion being taken together as formal?

Opposition senators: Yes.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: There is objection.

Senator McEWEN (South Australia—Government Whip in the Senate) (15:41): I ask that general business notice motion No. 476, authorising that a public meeting be held during the sitting of the Senate be taken as a formal motion.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to the motion being taken together as formal?

Opposition senators: Yes.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: There is objection.

Senator LUDWIG: I move:

That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (15:56): Mr Deputy President, the opposition will be asking that you put separately the first procedural element of this motion, that these bills may proceed without formalities, and the second procedural element of the motion, that these bills may be taken together. I wish to debate these procedural parts of the motion.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: There being no objection, we will separate the motion and the first question is that these bills may proceed without formalities.

Senator FIFIELD: At first blush what the government is seeking to do by acknowledging the transmission of the message from the House of Representatives and seeking to have these clean energy bills proceed without formalities and taken together looks fairly unremarkable. But this is a very unusual circumstance. Never in my knowledge of Australian political history, which is reasonably extensive, has a government so blatantly broken faith with the Australian people. There was a clear and unequivocal commitment by the Prime Minister to not introduce a carbon tax. All Labor senators and all coalition senators in this chamber who were up for election at the half-Senate election in 2010 presented themselves on the platform of not introducing a carbon tax—as, for that matter, did every member of the Australian Labor Party in the other place and as for that matter did every member of the coalition in the other place.

Senator Cormann: It is an L-A-W law carbon tax.

Senator FIFIELD: Senator Cormann cites Paul Keating's L-A-W law tax cuts as another instance of a breach of faith with the Australian people, but I think this one even eclipses that—this promise was so stark, so clear and completely without qualification. That is why we are not simply standing back and waving this procedural matter through this place. That is why on a joint select committee we have opposed other procedural matters, that is why we opposed the proposition for an extra sitting week, that is why we opposed motions for the variation of hours and that is why we are seeking to handle these carbon tax bills in a different manner in this place today. To do otherwise, to sit back and simply wave this particular matter through at this point in time, would see the coalition being complicit with the government in breaking its election commitment to the Australian people. The numbers are no doubt against us in this place and on this matter, but that is no reason for us not to do our job. That is no reason for us not to seek, at each and every stage of the consideration of this package of legislation, to hold the government to account. That is our job. We have sought to do that with previous procedural motions to grant additional time and days and we seek to do so again today.

We used every opportunity available to the coalition in the other place to seek to defeat this legislation and to thwart its progress, not because, as we are accused by those opposite, we are being mindlessly negative or because we are oppositionist in nature—far from it. This is an incredibly cooperative, incredibly constructive and incredibly positive opposition. We have a direct action plan as an alternative to the government's carbon tax agenda, which has been very well articulated by Mr Hunt in the other place and by Senator Birmingham in this place. We do have an alternative plan. Every time today, every time over the previous weeks and every time in the weeks ahead when the government says, 'You're a negative, oppositionist coalition,' we will say, 'That's wrong,' because we do have a clear plan and we do have a clear alternative.

The matter that is before us here, moved by Minister Ludwig, is that the bills may proceed without formalities and may be taken together. We think that they should not be taken together. We think that this package of 19 bills should be considered in sequence. Each of them deserves proper scrutiny. The government have sought to thwart proper scrutiny by passing a motion in this place which will see a guillotine come into effect in the weeks ahead in November. As I said this morning: on the one hand the government make great play of the fact that they consider this legislation should—as they say—be scrutinised appropriately, so they schedule an extra week; on the other hand they move a motion to put into effect a gag, or a guillotine. Call it what you will, the upshot is the same: the purpose of it is to truncate debate. The purpose of it is to stifle debate. What we want to see is the maximum amount of sunshine cast upon these bills, because we know that did not happen in the other place. It was a very short debate in the House of Representatives. We know that that scrutiny did not take place in the joint committee established for that purpose. This was a joint committee, which I charitably suggest operated for two weeks—

Senator Cormann: Three weeks.

Senator FIFIELD: Three weeks? I suggested it was operating for two weeks but it was only in session for one week. As all of us in this place know very well, the most direct parallel in recent parliamentary history in Australia is that of the goods and services tax and the new tax system legislation. There we had multiple Senate committees examining that package of legislation at the same time and doing so for over five months. This chamber, as a result of the Australian Greens and the Australian Labor Party combining, denied the Senate's committees the opportunity to examine the clean energy legislation.

We have a combination of problems here when it comes to parliamentary scrutiny. In the House of Representatives we had a very rushed examination. We had the curtailing, or the guillotining, of debate in the House of Representatives. We also had the forestalling of the work of the Senate committees. So the last place and the last opportunity for scrutiny for this package of bills is the Australian Senate, and we want to seek every opportunity to make sure that that happens. That is why we are moving that these bills not proceed without formalities and that they not be taken together. We have a job to do. We know the numbers are stacked against us but, regardless of whether a result in this place is a foregone conclusion, this chamber has a job to do. This chamber has a job as a house of review and senators have a responsibility as legislators to make sure that there is appropriate examination of the bills that come before this place.

What we are seeing with this package of bills is the ultimate in gesture politics, but unlike usual gesture politics this has a detrimental effect. Usually in gesture politics there is some symbolic act taken but no detriment or harm is done. However, this is a political gesture which will do enormous damage to Australia, it will do enormous damage to Australian businesses, it will do enormous damage to Australian households and, for that matter—looking specifically at my shadow portfolio of disabilities, carers and the voluntary sector—it will do enormous damage to Australians with disabilities, to charitable organisations, to not-for-profit organisations and to the voluntary sector.

This legislation will be like a punch to the solar plexus for the not-for-profit sector in Australia. As a parliament we are meant to be keeping an eye out and trying to make life easier for Australians who are particularly vulnerable and who face additional challenges because of circumstances beyond their control, such as people with disabilities. Whereas the usual starting point for a government with any policy or piece of legislation is to do no harm, the starting point of this government with its policy and with its package of legislation is to do harm. That is the purpose of it. This was very clearly unearthed in the Senate Select Committee on Scrutiny of New Taxes, which Senator Cormann chaired, and despite all the obstacles in their way it was also something which was brought to the fore by Senator Birmingham and Senator Cormann together in the sham joint committee. So we should be in no doubt that this legislation will do harm, because that is its objective: it seeks to do harm. We would be derelict in our duty as an opposition if we did not take each and every opportunity that this parliament affords for scrutiny—whether it be in matters of public interest, matters of public importance, motions to take note of answers, question time, questions on notice, Senate estimates, debate on legislation, debate on procedural motions, or whatever opportunity is presented by this chamber—to hold the government to account.

If there is one thing I am not going to do, and that Senator Abetz, Senator Cormann, Senator Birmingham and Senator Williams are not going to do, it is to be complicit in facilitating the breach of an election promise solemnly given by the Prime Minister of Australia. We will not do that. We do not care how often those on the other side accuse us of being obstructionist or difficult. We are not. We are doing our job. The attitude of those opposite is: 'The numbers are in the bag. We're going to get this through. The opposition should lie back, let it all happen, think of a brighter and better day and just turn a blind eye.' That is the attitude of the government. Apart from showing contempt for the parliament, apart from not valuing the role of review that this chamber has, more than anything it just shows contempt for the Australian public.

It is bad enough that the Australian Labor Party formed government—I will not say 'won the election', because that is certainly debatable—on the back of a lie and won many of the seats that it holds on the back of a lie. That is bad enough in and of itself. It deserves to be condemned for that and that alone. But, recognising that it is in the nature of the Australian Labor Party to be dishonest and to deceive the Australian public, the very least that the government should have done was to ensure adequate scrutiny of this package of legislation in the other place and in the Australian Senate and its committees. It has not done that.

But there still is the opportunity for the Australian Labor Party to redeem its soul. There is still the opportunity for the Australian Labor Party to regain some dignity. There is still the opportunity for the Australian Labor Party to seek to reconnect with those people who used to support it. I say 'used to support it', because it is very clear now that the traditional base of the Australian Labor Party do not support it. But it is not too late for the Australian Labor Party to redeem its soul, to reconnect with its traditional supporters and to regain some dignity and some integrity. The way that it can do that is by discharging this legislation. As I said this morning, it is open to the government to discharge this legislation.

Having done that, the Prime Minister should go to Yarralumla and say to Her Excellency the Governor-General: 'I've made an awful blue. It seemed a good idea at the time to tell the Australian people that I wouldn't introduce a carbon tax, but it's kind of caught up to me. The Australian public are kind of onto me. The game is up. I know that, so therefore, Governor-General, I'm seeking an election to seek a mandate for this package of legislation.' Then the Prime Minister, having secured an election, should have the strength of her convictions and say to the Australian public: 'This carbon tax is good for you. You need this carbon tax. You want this carbon tax. You just don't know how lucky you'll be if you end up getting a carbon tax.' That is what she should say if she really has the strength of her convictions.

That reminds me that I have seen one member of the Australian Labor Party do just that. That was the member for Isaacs, Mr Dreyfus. I was very fortunate: I attended the annual general meeting a few weeks back of an organisation called SEMMA, the South East Melbourne Manufacturers Alliance. Dandenong, where this meeting was held, is the heart of the manufacturing belt of Victoria. Something of the order of 44 per cent of Victoria's manufacturing output comes from the south-east. The topic of Mark Dreyfus's address to these 300 manufacturers in Dandenong was 'The carbon tax and why it's good for your business'. I must confess I did take a little bit of perverse pleasure in seeing 300 manufacturers strip flesh from the body of Mr Dreyfus, but what I found particularly informative was when one manufacturer stood up and said, 'Mr Dreyfus, the electricity bill for my manufacturing business is going to go up by $120,000 a year as a result of the carbon tax,' to which Mr Dreyfus replied in words to the effect of, 'That just goes to prove my point that the effect of the carbon tax will be modest.' They just do not get it. Another manufacturer stood up and said: 'We're in the medical devices business. One of our products costs $1,500 to make. Our margin on the product is $16, and the carbon tax will completely wipe that out.' Mr Dreyfus said words to the effect of, 'I think what that tells us is that your business has other problems.'

Senator Abetz: What arrogance!

Senator FIFIELD: The height of arrogance. But I do have to give it to Mr Dreyfus: at least he was honest enough to go out there and to say that he thinks a carbon tax will be good for your business. The Prime Minister should have that same courage if she really believes in this package of legislation. She should have the courage to go to the public and say: 'This is great. You'll never be happier. You might think you're happy now, but it's nothing compared to how your life will be under a carbon tax.' If that is what she really believes then she should go out there and she should sell that. I think I know what the result would be. But, if by a miracle, the government should happen to win that election, I think everyone on this side of the chamber would respect that verdict: the public would have clearly spoken, the public would have been given an opportunity to have their say—and we of all people would recognise that.

But, even if that highly unlikely scenario happened, we would still insist in this place on decent scrutiny. We would still insist on proper Senate scrutiny. We would still insist on five months of scrutiny of legislation of a significant magnitude. Even if the end result would be that the parliament would pass that package, this chamber, this parliament, has a job to do: to scrutinise this legislation. And it is the opportunity for that scrutiny that this government has sought to deny on each and every occasion—whether it be in the other place or whether it be in this place.

The most recent reason rolled out as to why this legislation must be passed, why it is so urgent, is the Durban conference. We were a little sceptical before the Copenhagen conference that there would not have been great hand-holding, rejoicing, embraces and universal agreement as to how to proceed in relation to climate change. We were a little cynical about that, and it did not come to pass. I have my doubts that it will come to pass at Durban, as well. But let me tell you, Mr Deputy President, I am not too fussed by what anyone at Durban thinks. I am not too fussed by what any other government who is represented there thinks. What I care about, what everyone on this side of the chamber cares about, is what the Australian people think and what the effect of this legislation will be on them. We stand here for the Australian people: we stand here for jobs, we stand here for growth, we stand here for business—because business employs people—and we stand here against unnecessary increases in the cost of living. This legislation deserves full examination, and it is for the reasons I have outlined that we contend that this legislation should not be taken together, that it should be taken in seriatim. I commend the motion.

Senator ABETZ (Tasmania—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (16:17): The coalition does deny the formality being sought by the government, because we want to ensure that they will have to take each and every step to perpetrate their deceit on the Australian people. We will not allow them to just throw into the Senate 19 bills and say, 'This is a package'—we will challenge their conscience on every single bill. They know that the only reason they are sitting on the government side of this chamber and in the other place is that Ms Gillard solemnly promised the Australian people that there would be no carbon tax. A greater deceit in Australian politics we have not witnessed. Sure, the second prize goes to former Labor Prime Minister Paul Keating when he promised L.A.W.—law—tax cuts before an election, legislated them, got re-elected and then immediately repealed them. It is no wonder Ms Gillard said just the other day that she saw her government in the same light as the Keating government; no wonder also that she dug into that treasure trove of tricks that Mr Keating used to deceive the Australian people all those years ago. What we are seeing today is a repeat of that history.

We are not going to allow the Labor Party to simply deal with this as a 'package of bills'. We want them to deal with each one, vote on each one, knowing that on each of the 19 occasions they are betraying the trust that the Australian people placed in them.

I had occasion to say earlier today that 148 members out of the 150-member House of Representatives were elected on a promise of no carbon tax. Five out of the six senators elected at the last election from each of the states were elected on a promise of no carbon tax. Two out of the two senators elected from each of the territories was elected on a promise of no carbon tax. And yet somehow this carbon tax, I understand, is going to get through this parliament. The Australian people are right to ask how they have been betrayed in such a gross fashion. How is it that, when an overwhelming majority of people have been elected on a solemn promise not to do something, they seek to do the exact opposite? That is going to be the millstone around the Labor Party's neck. Some call it the 'Milnestone' around the Labor Party's neck, but of course the Greens are the architects of this policy.

Senator Williams: And Windsor!

Senator ABETZ: Senator Williams raises the name of Mr Windsor, the member for New England, which is a very interesting point as well. Because those people who get themselves to this parliament as Indepen­dents have two great duties, I would suggest. The first is to reflect and represent the wishes of their electorate, because they say they are not beholden to any party and therefore they can do exactly what the wishes of their electorates dictate. I would also have thought the role of an Independent is to keep the government honest. Mr Windsor, the member for New England and Mr Oakeshott, the member for Lyne, are failing in both those duties. They know that their electorates overwhelmingly are opposed to a carbon tax—overwhelmingly. Senator Williams presented the result of a survey earlier today to this parliament, showing the overwhelming feeling in the electorates of New England and Lyne in relation to the carbon tax. The members have completely discarded the wish of their electors, and they are now in lockstep with a government that has lost the trust of the Australian people. And of course they have not kept the government honest, as one would have imagined Independents would seek to do. So we have a situation where the Australian people are rightly asking, 'What has happened in our democracy when a Prime Minister can stare down the lens of a TV camera to have it broadcast into every home in Australia that she will not introduce a carbon tax?' And when we say, 'Don't trust them,' we are accused of being hysterical. Well, today we have proven to have been historical, because history has now shown that that is exactly what Labor was going to do and that is exactly what Labor has done. Yet Mr Swan still parades around, having deceived the Australian people, as the 'world's greatest Treasurer'. But so was Mr Keating and so were Lehman Bros given gongs by this international organisation. The fact that Mr Costello never got it I think speaks for itself. I would prefer to be on Mr Costello's side in relation to that than Mr Keating, Mr Swan and Lehman Bros and other organisations that have failed.

During this debate from time to time we are accused of being negative. Let us be quite clear on this. When we say 'no' to deceit we say 'yes' to integrity in government. When we say 'no' to a carbon tax we say 'yes' to manufacturing jobs, we say 'yes' to agricultural jobs, we say 'yes' to decreasing the cost of living pressures that are faced by Australian people. So when people on the other side and some in the media seek to assert that the coalition has to be more positive, how much more positive can you be than trying to keep a government honest and attuned to its election promises? How much more positive can you be than condemning the deceit of the Labor Party and seeking to have integrity in government? How much more positive can you be than seeking to protect manufacturing jobs and agricultural jobs in Australia? How much more positive can you be than trying to decrease the cost of living pressures that Australians face?

So why this indecent haste to throw in 19 bills and have them all dealt with as one single package? I think we know the reason why, Mr Deputy President: because Labor wants to parade at Durban as the one country with a legislated scheme. That was Labor's policy under Mr Rudd, if you recall: the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme had to be legislated so that we could be the performing clowns at Copenhagen. That was the idea, that we would be the only country at Copenhagen with a legislated scheme. Not content with having failed to be the clowns at Copenhagen, they now want to be the dunces of Durban with a piece of legislation and throwing that around and saying, 'How clever are we?'

It was interesting that during question time today the President welcomed a delegation from the Japanese parliament. He also welcomed a delegation from the United States. I could not help but ask myself, albeit somewhat audibly, I confess: where is the Japanese carbon tax?

Senator Williams: It doesn't exist.

Senator ABETZ: It doesn't exist. Where is the United States carbon tax? It doesn't exist. If we welcomed a delegation from New Zealand and asked them where was their carbon tax, they would be saying, 'We are trying to reduce it and get rid of it as quickly as possible.' If we had welcomed a delegation from the French government, we could have asked them, 'Where is your carbon tax?' and they would have said, 'We will have no bar of it.' And so it goes on.

Why is it that the Labor Party, having promised no carbon tax, are seeking to inflict on the Australian economy the highest rate of carbon pricing in the world? Why are they trying to do it? And why did they pick on the price of $23 per tonne? Why not a round figure of $20 or $25? You know why? Because the Greens went to the last election promising $23 per tonne and so Ms Gillard just accepted that as her policy. If you recall, all of the so-called Treasury modelling that we were given previously was all based on the price of $20 per tonne. So all the work had to be redone to fit in with Senator Brown's policy and the Greens' policy.

Some people may assert that we in the coalition are somewhat harsh when we say that Ms Gillard deceived the Australian people. She did say, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' So it begs the question: who actually does lead this government? It may well be that she does not and that Senator Bob Brown and the Australian Greens actually lead this government. We happen to think on this side that that may well be the case. But that is for the Greens-Labor alliance to sort out between themselves, because Ms Gillard and every single Labor member and senator are personally, corporately and individually responsible for this carbon tax. They cannot hide behind the skirts of Ms Gillard and the Labor Party collective and say, 'The party room made me do it.' In a democracy you are ultimately answerable to the people that elected you. Mr Perrett, who somehow found his conscience in Moreton Bay, very interestingly thinks it would be uncon­scionable to change leader but not unconscionable to break a solemn election promise in relation to no carbon tax. It is also interesting given that Mr Bandt, Mr Windsor and a few others think it is important from time to time to consult with their electorate on some of these fundamentally important issues such as gay marriage. If you are in the business of genuinely consulting with your electorate on matters such as gay marriage, why wouldn't you consult with your electorate on the issue of a carbon tax and follow suit when they tell you what they want?

Just the other day I was in the seat of Braddon, at a stand at their local show, with Senator Richard Colbeck. I was standing there all day. Not a single person approached me about gay marriage being a fundamentally important issue for our nation, but dozens and dozens and dozens—indeed hundreds—approached us during the day to condemn the carbon tax and the deceit that had been perpetrated on them. So it is up to Mr Sid Sidebottom, the Labor member for Braddon, to determine whether he will put Ms Gillard's job before the hundreds and indeed thousands of people employed in Braddon in mining and in manufacturing and whether he will put the plight of the pensioners who will face increased costs of living as a result of these measures as his priority as opposed to Ms Gillard. Mr Dick Adams, in the seat of Lyons, will have to answer that as well. Geoff Lyons, in the seat of Bass, will have to answer that. Ms Collins, in the seat of Franklin, will have to answer that. And that is just in the state of Tasmania. Every other single Labor member will be required to answer as well to the electorate.

The issue before the chamber is to ensure that this package of 19 separate bills is dealt with appropriately, properly and extensively. When you have the sham of a joint committee chaired by Labor and deputy chaired by the Greens deliberately not publishing the thousands of submissions against the carbon tax, you know the fix is in. They call a quick committee. They advertise and say, 'You've got to have your response to these 19 bills in within six days.' And then they determine that certain submissions—because they are in letter form or do not actually make out an argument—should not be published as submissions. Yet they do publish those 'intellectually robust' submissions that are about two paragraphs saying: 'I like your carbon tax. Labor's doing a good job.' Oh, they will publish those okay. They will put them up on the internet for everybody to read. But, if somebody were to write the exact opposite of that, the Labor-Greens numbers—like they gagged debate earlier today—will be used to ensure that those sorts of submissions do not hit the internet and do not get publicised. This is the ham-fisted approach this government is taking in cahoots with the Greens.

The reason they are so defensive is that they know they have perpetrated a deceit on the Australian people. That is why they are getting themselves into this terrible, terrible bind. That is why they do not want 19 separate bills ventilated before the Australian people. They would rather have it all hushed up and rushed through as one single package because they do not want to be reminded 19 separate times of the deceit they have perpetrated against the Australian people.

Time and time again in this debate we have been told that the carbon tax is in fact a good idea and will be of great benefit to the Australian economy. If that is the case, I invite them: instead of making the carbon tax $23 per tonne, why not double it and make it $46 per tonne so we can have double the benefit? Of course, that exposes another Labor lie in this debate. The carbon tax is corrosive. It is destructive. Labor know it, and that is why at the last election they solemnly promised, 'There will be no carbon tax,' because they know that in an electoral context and in an electoral contest they would not be able to convince their fellow Australians that a carbon tax is good. In fact, a carbon tax is bad. Indeed, when Senator Wong was the minister for climate change, before she got moved sideways, she said in this place that a carbon tax is not a silver bullet. Now we are to believe that somehow it is a golden bullet and it will resolve all issues.

I happen to believe that the Australian people are a generous people and an environmentally concerned people. I happen to believe that they may well be willing to take a bit of a hit on their lifestyle for an environmental benefit. If you could show on the other side of the ledger a genuine environmental benefit, they may well be willing to take an economic hit. But Senator Wong was asked today, 'What is the environmental benefit?' and the simple fact is that she is unable to explain. Indeed, we were told that without a carbon tax we would face a 40 per cent greater likelihood of droughts in Australia. Well, if she can make that prediction based on whatever evidence she might have in relation to that, why couldn't she answer the simple question from the Leader of the Nationals: 'With this carbon tax, how much less likely is there to be the threat of drought in Australia?' She could not answer.

And of course she could not answer, because everybody knows that a five per cent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions on the 1990 levels, if I recall correctly, on 1.5 per cent of the world's emissions is not going to make any real difference to the world's environment, especially when we know that our manufacturing sector will simply go to China and pollute even more over there than they do in Australia. As a result, we will have a perverse environmental outcome. Talk to the Europeans. They have seen the demise of their aluminium industry. Why? Because it could not compete under their very modest carbon price and it shifted off to Asia, Africa and elsewhere, where the pollution levels are a lot greater because they do not have the sorts of environmental controls that we enjoy in this country and they enjoy in Europe. So we will take these bills through every single stage, as they deserve. (Time expired)

Senator JOYCE (Queensland—Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (16:37): I have had the joy—and that is a cynical way of putting it—of seeing some of this garbage that has been presented to our nation and that, apparently, we are to look at in globo. I would be fascinated to go through some of the details of some of these things because, apparently, we do not need to see them in seriatim—we are right across it. It is all a piece of cake.

This is interesting:

(1)   A person who is or was required to provide a report under section 22E for an eligible financial year must keep records of the person’s activities that:

   (a)   allow the person to report accurately under section 22E; and

   (b)   enable the Regulator to ascertain whether the person has complied with the person’s obligations under section 22E; and

   (c)   comply with the requirements of subsection (2) and the regulations made for the purposes of subsection (3).

The civil penalty is 1,000 penalty units. It further states: 'The person must retain the records for five years from the end of the financial year' and on and on it goes. Look at it: it is like Kafka's Castle. The place we have arrived at is amazing.

What about the EMEP test day? It is defined under section 63B(3) as follows:

In the income year of claim, this day is the day on which the claimant makes the claim for the payment. In subsequent income years, the EMEP test day is the anniversary of the day on which the claimant made the claim in a previous year, provided that, since the claimant made the claim, the Repatriation Commission has not determined that the claimant has ceased to be eligible for the payment. If the Repatriation Commission has determined that the claimant is no longer …

And on and on it goes. Apparently, the government are all across it. They are the absolute full bottle on this. It is all right—straight through. I would love to ask the Prime Minister about some of these details and I would love to ask Minister Combet. They would not have the foggiest idea, apart from what has been sent to them on their BlackBerries. They have the BlackBerry message all worked out, but they would not know about the legislation. You can bet your life that this will be an absolute and utter debacle. But this is what they are doing to our nation.

These are the redesigned plans for the nation of Australia, for our economy. Here they are, set up by the people who could not get fluffy stuff into the ceiling without setting fire to 194 houses and, tragically, killing four people. This redesign of our nation's economy is being undertaken by the same people who gave us the Building the Education Revolution. This redesign of our economy is being undertaken by the same people who conducted a war against obesity. Remember that? We are still wondering: did we achieve detente, did we win, did we lose? Or are we going to have a second war on obesity? This is what the Australian Labor Party has delivered to us via the Australian Greens, because the Greens are now running the show.

Some sections of this legislation could be terminal for them, because they have become so soulless and, once you start being guided by the Greens, you completely isolate yourself from your conservative working-class voters, who will just leave you. Look at all this! It is just absolutely amazing. Now come the nasty bits. I am just opening it up. Under the heading 'Scheme to avoid future liability to pay administrative penalty—Intention', it states:

(1) A person commits an offence if—

and we are seeing a lot of the word 'offence' in this—

a.      a penalty is due and payable by a body corporate or trust under section 212; and

b.      before the penalty became due and payable, the person entered into a scheme; and

c.      the person entered into the scheme with the intention of securing or achieving the result, either … the body corporate or trust:

i.      will be unable; or

ii.      will be likely to be unable; or

iii.   will continue to be unable; or

iv.   will be likely to continue to be unable;

And on and on it goes. Then comes imprisonment for 10 years. This is a nasty little document you have got yourself here, which bangs you up in the can for 10 years, and we are just supposed to look at it in globo because, apparently, you are so over it.

Minister Wong looks totally competent. I would bet you London to a brick that the government have not read the legislation. I bet you London to a brick they have not a clue what is in the legislation. We might want to ask the government questions about who they are going to bang up for 10 years. I think a lot of Australian people would like to know the answer to the question: 'Are the Labor Party about to bring in a piece of legislation which, if I get wrong, I could be in the slammer for 10 years?' Also, ' I want you to more fully disclose to me what is on page 324 of the Clean Energy Bill 2011.'

And the Greens are part of this. They do not believe in transparency. They are sitting there with that stupid smirk on their faces. Their leader 'Dr Brown' thinks this is all fun and games and that this is what you do—you just let these things run through.

Here is another quote with respect to retaining records:

(2)   The person must retain the records for 5 years from the end of the financial year …

(3)   The regulations may specify requirements relating to:

   (a)   the kinds of records; and

   (b)   the form of records—

and how the records must be kept. The penalty is two years imprisonment. This is what we are getting! It is here, Australia; it has arrived. Aren't the Labor Party wonderful people? In a brief perusal of this Kafka's nightmare, I see you get 10 years in prison for one offence, two years in prison for another offence. This is the world the Labor Party live in. This is where we are off to, as they redesign our nation's economy on a colourless, odourless gas. You better not lose any. Do not steal any. What is the price of breathing these days? It must become more expensive. Are we going to keep records on that? I thought this was 2011. It is starting to sound awfully like 1984, with this almost Orwellian type of Big Brother approach to every facet of our lives. The government can increase this tax, without it ever having to go back to this parliament. It does not have to go back to this parliament. They have got around that. We cannot have the nation of Australia and its parliament having oversight of the tax! If they have to launch their attack against the climate, making the world colder from a room in Canberra, they can jack up the tax to rise to the challenge, and in rising to the challenge they make every person in Australia with a power point poorer. Every corner of their house will become a collection mechanism for the Australian Taxation Office. And of course they have to collect some friends along the way, so down the track they will have an emissions trading scheme. That is great, isn't it? The banks will love that: moving paper here, moving paper there. The banks are doing it tough; it is good to see the Greens looking after the big banks and giving them a multibillion dollar revenue stream from trading the permits.

The friends of big banks are the Australian Greens, because they are doing it tough and they need all the help they can get. You are about to do it. You have moralised and got it through your head that it is right to tax someone in a weatherboard and iron house out in the suburbs, that it is right to collect money from them and to funnel it to someone who is probably doing very well thank you very much—and God bless them and good luck to them—and probably does not need that person's money. You are going to funnel that money to Martin Place. We do not need it in Mount Druitt when it can be in Martin Place. We do not need it in Cunnamulla when it can be in Martin Place. We do not need that money up in Bundaberg when it can be in George Street. This is a bonanza. I cannot wait to see who the geniuses are, the luminaries on the other side who will be able to answer some of these questions.

The way they are getting around it is that they are not allowing us to ask any questions. We had the first example of that today with the guillotine: they shall not ask questions on behalf of the Australian people. The job of the opposition in most instances is, naturally enough, to oppose, to see if you are prudent and across the facts. Because you are not, how are you dealing with that? You are launching yourselves into this guillotine. What is so nauseating is that we had to listen to the Leader of the Greens, Dr Bob Brown. He supported the guillotine with that stupid smirk on his face. Here is a quote from that same person:

Let there be no doubt about this: the government can—

Senator Milne: Madam Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I draw your attention to standing order 193, 'Rules of debate':

A senator shall not use offensive words ... all imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections on ... members or officers shall be considered highly disorderly.

In the light of that, I would ask Senator Joyce to desist from making remarks of a personal nature about Senator Bob Brown and withdraw what he already has said.

Senator JOYCE: If he did not smirk, I am happy to. If there is anything that is offensive there I certainly—

Senator Milne interjecting—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Crossin ): Senator Joyce, I think the point of order is to be mindful of the words that you use during this debate when reflecting on senators in this chamber.

Senator JOYCE: I will quote Senator Dr Bob Brown. These are some of the things he has said in the past:

Let there be no doubt about this: the government can manipulate the Senate and is doing so. The government can dishonour the processes of the Senate and is doing so. The government may try to treat the Senate as it does the House of Representatives—that is, as a rubber stamp—and convert this country to executive government, but the government will reap the whirlwind of that. Fortunately, it cannot do away with elections.

That sounds very prophetic. Who said that? It was Dr Bob Brown on 28 November 2005. This is the same person who is removing our right in this parliament to have proper oversight of these documents, which even on the briefest perusal we can find predom­inantly that you are sending people to jail. For doing what? For mishandling something that was formerly free—that is, carbon dioxide. We now have this colourless, odourless gas becoming not only something that we have to buy but something that, if we do not administer it properly, can end us up in jail.

And why? What is it going to do? What is going to happen to the temperature of the globe? Absolutely nothing will happen to the temperature of the globe, but we will have this bureaucracy and these fields of policeman coming into every corner of our lives. We are supposed to be protecting, giving more liberty to the people and making them more free, not tying them up in this absolute lunacy. Has anybody over there read this? Does anybody have a clue about it? No, you do not have to; you can just walk it in here and ram it through.

What of the Australian people? Are they just happy with it? They are happy that those opposite have thrown a match into the building and walked out the door, that they have thrown a match into the Australian economy and walked out the door? The management that has brought us this bundle, this packet of poo tickets, is the same one that currently has us $211.3 billion in gross debt, borrowing $2 billion last week and $2 billion the week before. They cannot make their ends meet their resources but they can cool the planet.

We have not only a right but an obligation to the Australian people to look at this in seriatim, because I truly believe that if we do not look at it none of them will. Not Mr Combet, who is up there saying, 'This is a great day,' along with all the backslapping. They are all happy chappies, backslapping and saying: 'Isn't this marvellous? Isn't it marvellous what we have done to the Australian people today? Aren't we clever because, even though none of them wanted it, we showed the Australian people that we are so stubborn we would do it to them anyway.' Because, you see, they are wiser than the Australian people. They are wiser and more noble, and that gives them the right to do this to you. And if you do not like what they are doing to you, be careful because in here they have the right to put you in jail. This debate has not finished. The Australian people will demand of us that we fight this all the way. And we will attach this to every lower house member who has voted for it. It is now their problem. They are personally responsible for their actions today; they are personally responsible for bringing this in. And we will attach this to every senator who votes for it. We will attach it to the Greens and we will attach it to the Labor Party. If it brings you unstuck—and it will—that is something that you will have to deal with.

Isn't it funny how the Greens talk about liberty and supporting the liberty of the individual? They want a more liberal environment for drugs, but they do not want a more liberal environment for carbon dioxide—oh, no, they cannot have that; they have to regulate that; they are going to throw people in jail over that. That is the new world. They want a more liberal environment for drugs; they want to reduce all the offences for drugs. But they want to make it a criminal offence to misappropriate the air that we breathe. Then they get some people out on the front lawn. I looked at it the other day. There were more placards than people. And they do not know about it. It is almost a cult. They go out there, or GetUp gets them out there, and they rant and rave and yak on. But they are not going to be held responsible for what happens to people.

I do not know how we can explain this. What possessed you to do this? What possessed you to launch this on us? How many of you people over there understand or can explain to us the trading stock implications of carbon permits? When is it an asset? When is it trading stock? I do not know. You do not know; you do not have a clue. You have not even read it. There is so much in here. What about application to foreign ships? That is another little bit. Let us have a read of this:

This Act does not apply to the extent that its application would be inconsistent with the exercise of rights of foreign ships in:

(a) the territorial sea; or

(b) the exclusive economic zone; or

(c) waters of the continental shelf;

in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

That is interesting. That obviously means that it could apply to Australian ships. Oh, that's right: it does. Australian things are evil! We have to have things from overseas; we cannot have a manufacturing industry anymore! Under this, if you want to fly to Fiji, that will be free of the carbon tax. But if you want to fly and support the Australian tourism industry, you will get taxed for that. And you had better obey the law, otherwise they will throw you in jail. This is the new world. Isn't it marvellous? It even applies to shipping. We know who is getting it free: if you are a foreigner, it is free; if you are domestic, you pay the tax.

Down the track, you get the joy of sending $56.9 billion—$56.9 thousand million—a year overseas to buy carbon credits. That is the ultimate in social engineering: taking money off the working Australian family and then bundling it up and sending it to Mr Mugabe, to the people of Zaire, to the people of the Congo and to the people of South-East Asia. That is what the Greens want to do: social re-engineering. They want to send it to those people who warrant it; those people who are more noble than us! Not only can we re-engineer Australia through a penalty of going to jail; we can re-engineer the whole world! You will have so much to tell them at Durban. It will be a wonderful time. You will be able to say to them that not only are you saving Australia but you are saving the world—saving the world with carbon permits.

But some poor sucker out at Blacktown, out at Ipswich, out at Roma, is going to work to pay for it. They are going to come home to their power bill, and there is your tax. So they work some of their lives in the sun stacking bricks, stacking shelves, behind a counter, shearing sheep, welding or whatever—in whatever industries are left after you have completely and utterly botched our nation's economy—so that you can go on your frolic of sending money here, there and everywhere around the world. This is absurd. Don't you think that there is something not right about this? Isn't there something in your stomach that tells you that there is something not right about this? Where did this come from?

The Australian people hate this. That is why before the last election you did not tell them the truth. You said that you were not going to bring it in. And now you have brought it in. If they had known that you were thinking about banging them up in jail they might have had a different view about voting for you. They might have thought differently. If they had thought that you were about to regulate the very essence of their existence, the air that they breathe, they might have thought about voting for somebody else. Gosh, I would have. But this is where we are.

And you think that we are going to lie down on this and go to sleep. You think that somehow next week it will all be better. We are going to chase you and chase you every day. We will be at the doors every day. We will chase you every weekend. Every time that we get a chance, we will chase you and we will say: 'When you think about the Labor Party, think about the carbon tax; when you think about the Labor Party, think about your power bill; when you think about the Labor Party, think about your fuel bill; when you think about the Labor Party, think about the legislation that they brought in to bang you up in jail if you dare disagree with their world view. When you think about the Greens, think about the money that they sent overseas; when you think about the Greens, think about the guillotine and how they shut down the debate so that the Australian people couldn't properly ventilate their views on this mass of legislation.' That will be the debate. We will pursue you and pursue you, and we will not relent until the next election. Then at every polling booth in every seat we will be reminding the Australian people about you.

If the global economy comes unstuck, you have created it so that you cannot get out of it—apparently, you do not want to get out of this. I have a rough idea how the punter works. I know how they are going to deal with this. I have seen this before. We have made mistakes like this before. We made a mistake called Work Choices and got smashed. This is your mistake. Here it comes: exactly the same outcome. They are going to absolutely slaughter you.

Senator CORMANN (Western Australia) (16:58): We can well understand why the Labor Party wants to rush this legislation through the parliament with the minimum amount of scrutiny. The Labor Party is embarrassed. The Labor Party knows that this is bad legislation. The Labor Party knows that the carbon tax is not in our national interest. The Labor Party knows that the carbon tax will push up the cost of everything, will make us less competitive internationally, will cost jobs, will reduce real wages and will do nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Labor Party knows that. The Labor Party is not pursuing this carbon tax because they think that it is the right thing to do. They are pursuing this carbon tax because that was the price that the Prime Minister had to pay to stay in power, because that is the price that the Australian Greens demanded from Julia Gillard for their support for her staying on in government. We have a responsibility to expose the many flaws in this legislation. We have a responsibility to make sure that every last problem—and there are many of them—in this carbon tax is properly aired so that people across Australia understand what this arrogant, dictatorial, anti-democratic Labor-Greens government wants to impose on them. This is a bad tax. We know that Labor members think it is a bad tax, because they tell us so privately in the corridors of parliament. Labor senators and members of the House of Representatives tell us privately, 'Yeah, mate, we know that this is no good. We know it's not going to do anything to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. We know it's bad for jobs. We know it's going to push up the cost of everything, but what choice have we? The Prime Minister went out in the courtyard on 24 February and nailed her colours to the mast. She made the announcement, and now we're stuck with it. There's no way back for us.' That is what they tell us privately in the corridors of parliament. The sensible people on the Labor side know that this is bad for Australia. The sensible people on the Labor side are prepared to admit, in the privacy of conversations, that the only reason this bad carbon tax is being pushed on the Australian people against their will is because the Australian Greens forced the government to do it.

Do not tell us that the Prime Minister has always been committed to putting a price on carbon, because we know it is not true. We know that Julia Gillard, as the then Deputy Prime Minister, went to the then Prime Minister and said, 'Kill the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. It's no good. It's not in Australia's national interest.' We know that the Prime Minister went to the last election saying emphatically, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' This is, as Senator Fifield said, the most emphatic, most brazen, most clear-cut pre-election commitment ever made by a Prime Minister—it was made five days before the election, only to be broken less than a month after the election.

Let us remind ourselves of the process. Not only did the Prime Minister say that there would be no carbon tax under the government she led; she said that before they would do anything about putting a price on carbon they would commit themselves to building community consensus. We have a community consensus, and the community consensus is that people do not want this carbon tax. People know it will not work. They know that it will impose significant sacrifices on working families across Australia, that it will push up the cost of everything, that it will cost jobs and that it will reduce real wages, but that emissions in Australia and overseas will continue to grow. This of course is according to the govern­ment's own modelling. So, yes, we understand why the government wants to rush this legislation through. We understand why, in defiance of parliamentary convention, it has refused to have a proper and thorough inquiry into the 19 bills, the 1,100 pages of legislation, that are going to come before the Senate very soon.

We are not going to make it easy for the government to rush this through with the minimum amount of scrutiny. We think that the Australian people deserve to have the Senate scrutinise properly this bad carbon tax legislation, to put the sunlight into every nook and corner of it. The Senate commissioned, on 30 September last year, the Senate Select Committee on the Scrutiny of New Taxes to inquire into a number of taxes, including the mining tax and the carbon tax. It is really funny. Labor senators on the committee at the time said, 'How can you possibly include a carbon tax in the terms of reference for the scrutiny of new taxes committee? There will be no carbon tax.' Clearly, the message had not quite filtered through from the Deputy Prime Minister, Bob Brown, to the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, to the Labor senators on my committee that, yes, there would be a carbon tax. Looking back over the last 12 months, you would think it pretty funny if it were not so serious. But this is what we have been getting from this government over the last 12 months.

There was the promise before the last election that there would be no carbon tax, the promise was broken immediately after the election and there was an announcement in the Prime Minister's courtyard in February—no detail, just that there would now be a carbon tax. Given that they understood, after three or four years of debate under the Rudd and Gillard governments about what a carbon tax would and would not do, how bad it would be, people were pretty upset when the Prime Minister said there would be a carbon tax. There was a big outcry. Everybody says you should not take too much notice of the polls, but there is a fine balance between leadership and arrogance. You know what? This government has crossed the line from leadership to complete and utter arrogance and contempt for the Australian people.

The Prime Minister said, 'Don't you worry, as soon as the detail is out, as soon as we have told you how much you are going to have to pay, as soon as we have told you how much compensation there's going to be and where we're going to redistribute all the money, you're going to be happy. You're going to like the carbon tax.' Guess what? The announcement was made on 10 July and people still hate the carbon tax. What happened then? The Prime Minister said 'Don't you worry. I am going to wear out my shoe leather. I am going to walk down every street and shopping centre and tell people this is a great tax—and then they're going to love it.' Guess what? The longer the Prime Minister did that, the more unpopular the carbon tax became. Very quickly, the Prime Minister retreated from the shopping centres of Australia to the bosom of the press gallery in Canberra. Remember when she walked around a shopping centre with Mr Perrett, the member for Moreton? A lady approached the Prime Minister and Mr Perrett and asked, 'Why did you lie to us? Why did you tell us before the election that there would be no carbon tax, only to impose a carbon tax on us immediately after the election?' If Mr Perrett was serious about keeping faith with the people in his electorate, if he was serious about keeping faith with the lady in the shopping centre in his electorate, he would have voted against the carbon tax legislation this morning. But any suggestion by Mr Perrett that somehow he is committed to keeping faith with his electorate is just ridiculous. It is all about internal Labor Party leadership wranglings. It is all related to the internal soap opera that has become the Australian government.

After a couple of days talking to real people out in the community about the carbon tax and the impact it will have on household budgets, on the economy, on jobs and so on, the Prime Minister realised: 'Gee, this is a pretty unpopular tax. I'd better go back to somewhere where people are actually going to like it, where people are going to be friendly, where people are going to tell me that what I am doing is the right thing to do.' The National Press Club was holding a lunch, and of course that was nice and friendly territory for the Prime Minister. I will never forget the question that one particular journalist asked: 'Prime Minister, how can we help you make this bad tax more popular?' This was from a journalist. 'How can we help you sell this tax, Prime Minister?'

In every poll, every bit of feedback that senators and members on this side of the chamber—and, I am pretty sure, on the Labor Party side of the chamber—have been getting from the community as we travel around Australia, as we talk to real people, as we meet with people in the shopping centres of Australia, as we meet with people in the businesses of Australia, as we meet with people in manufacturing businesses across Australia, we see that people get it. People understand why this is a bad tax. People understand that making higher emitting manufacturers in China more competitive than lower emitting equivalent manufacturers in Australia is not effective action on climate change. People understand that when you help a higher emitting business in China take market share from a lower emitting business in Australia you are just shifting the emissions overseas to areas where they are arguably going to be higher than they would have been in Australia. That is not effective action on climate change; that is a reckless and irresponsible act of economic self-harm. It is our job to prevent this government from inflicting harm on the Australian people. It is our job to protect the Australian people from this bad carbon tax which will push up the cost of living, which will reduce our international competitiveness and which will cost jobs and reduce real wages without doing anything to help reduce global greenhouse gas emissions.

We know that the government lied before the last election. We know that the Prime Minister lied before the last election when she said that there would be no carbon tax under a government she led. But the lie continues today. Firstly, we should take a bit of a step back and remind ourselves what this whole carbon tax is supposed to be about. It is supposed to be about Australia making a contribution to help reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. If that is what it is actually about then the first question that one should ask is: by how much will the carbon tax put forward by the Gillard government reduce global greenhouse gas emissions? What will be the net effect of the carbon tax in Australia on global emissions? That is the question that I asked the Secretary of the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, who was not able to answer it. I asked that question of the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency in this chamber, Senator Wong, in question time a couple of weeks ago. She could not answer. Given the failure of Copenhagen, given that there is no appropriately comprehensive global agreement, carbon pricing might be a nice theoretical economic concept but it does not work in practice because we are working in a global environment. If we are trying to address a global problem in a global trade and global emissions environment then we have to make sure that our policy response here in Australia fits in with what happens internationally.

Of course, since Copenhagen we have known that there is no prospect of a comprehensive global agreement to price emissions any time soon. That changed the debate in Australia. That changed our public policy interest in Australia. When Labor senators and Labor members in the other place, one after the other, quote ad nauseam how John Howard as Prime Minister was going to pursue an emissions trading scheme, they are right: the Howard government was committed to an emissions trading scheme—in the context of an appropriately compre­hensive global agreement. But guess what: Australia's national interest changed in Copenhagen.

When Copenhagen failed to reach any agreement on pricing carbon, when it became clear in Copenhagen that there was no prospect of an appropriately compre­hensive global agreement to price emissions, Australia's national interest became not to have a carbon tax, not to have an emissions trading scheme in Australia but to pursue direct action initiatives—that is, to invest our money, to invest our resources and to invest our efforts in reducing emissions in Australia in a way that achieves a net reduction in emissions in the world. Direct action does not just shift emissions overseas; it reduces emissions in a way that achieves a net reduction. That is one of the many features that make direct action much more attractive than the government's carbon tax proposal.

The government have absolutely no capacity to entertain any of this policy discussion because they are strangled and locked in. They are under the thumb of Senator Bob Brown, Senator Milne and the Australian Greens. They are in a straitjacket. The Australian Labor Party these days are in the Australian Greens' straitjacket. So whatever the merits of the argument, whatever is right and whatever is wrong, whatever is good policy or whatever is bad policy, the Labor Party have absolutely no flexibility to consider policy issues on their merits because the Greens will not let them. That is the real tragedy with all of this.

The lie is still continuing. For example, again this morning the Prime Minister went on radio and said that emissions are going to reduce between now and 2020, when the Treasury's own modelling says that emissions are going to go up between now and 2020. The Prime Minister said on the radio this morning that there would be an additional 1.6 million jobs across Australia, according to Treasury modelling. That is actually not true. The Treasury modelling never assessed the impact of the carbon tax on jobs. It included a technical assumption that the carbon tax would have no impact on levels of unemployment in the long run, given that the economy will continue to grow. When you impose an assumption like that on the model, of course it is going to tell you what you want it to tell you, but that does not mean that the government actually ever credibly assessed the impact of the carbon tax on jobs. It did not.

It did not report on the impact of the carbon tax on regional Australia either. The state Labor government in New South Wales, before they were defeated, actually did some modelling on the impact of carbon pricing on regional areas through Frontier Economics. The impact was a 25 to 30 per cent reduction in economic activity in many regions of Australia. That was the assessment at the time and since then there have been many more assessments conducted by governments in New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia and Queensland. They all say the same thing—that is, that this carbon tax will push up the cost of everything, reduce our international competitiveness, cost jobs and reduce real wages without doing anything to help reduce global greenhouse gas emissions.

The other thing the Prime Minister said was that the economy will continue to grow. When you look at the Treasury modelling it actually tells us that, if we have this carbon tax in place followed by an emissions trading scheme, by 2050 our GDP will be 2.8 per cent lower than it otherwise would have been. The government then say: 'That does not matter. That is not much, 2.8 per cent. Who cares? It is going to continue to grow. What is 2.8 per cent between friends?' It is funny how their rhetoric changes depending on what argument they are trying to pursue. When the government were talking about the impact of the productivity improvements through COAG reforms, they said that a 2.5 per cent increase in GDP was a great thing, a significant increase. The Productivity Com­mission estimated the National Competition Policy reforms increased Australia's GDP by 2.5 per cent. When it was an increase in GDP of 2.5 per cent we heard, 'That is massive, that is significant, that is incredible. How fantastic! What a great job we have done through our massive economic reform.' But when there is an economic change that reduces our GDP by 2.8 per cent we hear, 'That is hardly anything. Who cares? That is nothing.'

We know that a reduction in GDP of 2.8 per cent by 2050 actually means in practice that the government's carbon tax legislation will see a reduction in GDP between now and 2050 of $1 trillion in today's dollars. That is extraordinary. That is nearly the whole GDP for the whole of Australia for a whole year. What that means in practice is that people across Australia will be required to work for a whole year effectively for nothing in order to pay for the impact of the carbon tax between now and 2050.

I am running out of time, which proves the point that the Senate and the parliament need much more time to debate the many flaws and problems in this legislation and the devastating impact that this carbon tax will have on families and communities across Australia. That is why we will not support any initiatives by the government to rush this legislation through the Senate inappropriately. (Time expired)

Senator NASH (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (17:18): I rise to make a contribution to this debate on the question that the clean energy bills may proceed without formalities. I am sure a lot of comments that I make are going to echo comments that have been made by colleagues on this side of the chamber. Let me take you back to about 18 months ago and the little bit of time prior to that when we were debating the idea of the government bringing in an emissions trading scheme. Colleagues, can you remember what happened then? I am sure you can, and I am sure those listening can remember what happened then. The Australian people looked at the government wanting to bring in an emissions trading scheme and colleagues will remember that this building went into meltdown. Our phones, our faxes and our emails went into meltdown with the Australian people saying to the Labor government that they did not want an emissions trading scheme. They absolutely knew that it was not going to achieve the desired result that the government were saying it would—that is, to change the climate. They knew that it was going to hurt them. They knew they were going to have to deal with this financially. They knew how much it was going to hurt the Australian people. They went into meltdown. The building went into meltdown. The government went into meltdown and they had a change of leadership.

That was the scenario we had when the Australian people actually knew what the government was proposing, what the government was actually planning on giving to them. Jump forward to just before the last election. The Prime Minister said to the Australian people, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' Guess what, colleagues? The Australian people fell for it. They believed the Prime Minister. They actually believed the Prime Minister when she said, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' Nobody jumped up through the election campaign saying, 'We don't want a carbon tax. This would be absolutely devastating for the country.' They felt there was absolutely no need to stand up and have their voice counted because the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, holding the highest office in the land, had promised the Australian people there would be no carbon tax and the Australian people believed her. It is not surprising that when it got to election time we did not see the same outpouring, the same uprising, from the Australian people that we saw when we were debating the emissions trading scheme because the Prime Minister had promised the Australian people that there would be no carbon tax. How sad is that? We have the Prime Minister of the country lying to the Australian people. I know every time we say that it touches a nerve on the other side and they say, 'It wasn't a lie.' If one of my children were to say to me, 'Mum, I haven't eaten the apple,' and 10 minutes later they were to say to me, 'Mum, I actually did eat the apple,' I would tend to think that they had told me a lie in the first instance. I do not know about other colleagues, but to me—

Senator Cormann: That sounds about right.

Senator NASH: Thank you very much, Senator Cormann. That sounds about right. So when you say one thing and then you do entirely the opposite, having promised people you will behave a certain way, to me that is a lie. That may be my own personal view, it may be my own understanding of how these things work, but to me it is a lie. Those people out in the streets across this country know that the Prime Minister told them a lie when she said that there was not going to be a carbon tax under the government she led. They know because today it has gone through the House of Representatives. What a very sad, dark day this is for the Australian people. I do not know, as I said in some remarks I made this morning, whether to be furiously angry or incredibly sad that this country is facing having to deal with this piece of legislation—this carbon tax. It is just simply wrong.

Everywhere I go, down every street, in every business, talking to people right across the country, particularly in regional communities, they are saying: 'Why are we doing this? We know it is going to hurt. We know financially we are going to be worse off. We know that electricity prices are going to rise. We know fuel costs are going to rise. We know transport costs are going to rise.' On that very fact alone, Madam Acting Deputy President, as you or anybody in this chamber would know, regional Australia suffers most because of the cost of transport. When those costs of transport go up, as they are going to do when this change comes in for the transport industry not very far down the track—it is going to cost the transport industry $500 million in the first year—they will be passed on to regional people. Those people that I speak to out in regional communities and in the cities keep saying to me, 'Why?' The very point about this, colleagues, is that it is not going to change the climate one little bit.

My colleague Senator Cormann pointed out earlier—and he is absolutely right—that the whole point of this legislation is to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. So the simple question is: does the legislation actually do that? The answer is no. Colleagues, let us have a look. For those listening who cannot actually see what I am doing, I am holding up my copy of the legislation which is about six inches thick. Does the Clean Energy (Household Assistance Amendments) Bill 2011 change the climate? No. Does the Clean Energy Bill 2011 change the climate? No. Does the Clean Energy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011 change the climate? No. In the rest of this six-inch pile of legislation, does any single piece of paper or any single written word change the climate? No, it does not. That is why the Australian people are so furious with this Labor government bringing this carbon tax in. It does not do what the government intends the legislation to do. It does not change the climate.

As my good colleague Senator Joyce often says, the government thinks it can sit down here in Canberra and flick a switch and change the temperature of the globe. It is simply nonsensical because we are the only country doing this. Those on the other side like to continually point out that other countries are doing this and we are just getting on board. The Productivity Commission—not Senator Nash or any of my Senate colleagues—says that no other country is doing or is about to do what we are about to bring in. That is a simple fact. So what do we have then, colleagues? We have vanity legislation from the Prime Minister—nothing more, nothing less. This is vanity legislation from the Prime Minister so she can go to South Africa at the end of the year and say on the world stage, 'I have brought clean energy legislation into Australia; I am the queen of the world.'

The point is that it is not going to change the climate one little bit and the Prime Minister is somewhat misguided if she thinks bringing in this legislation is going to make her look good, because it is not. Quite frankly, I do not think anything at this stage can make the Prime Minister look good with the succession of bad policy decisions that this Prime Minister continues to make. What is extraordinary is the ineptness—if that is a word—the inept nature, of the way the Prime Minister is running this country. She thinks: 'This is a great idea. Let's lead the world. We have to lead the way.' Why do we have to lead the way when we emit only 1.4 per cent of the world's emissions? It is hard to understand, but 1.4 per cent of the world's emissions is Australia's contribution. Yet we have a Prime Minister and a government pushed by the Greens to bring in a carbon tax that is going to put a huge financial impost on this country. It is going to reconfigure our economy, it is going to put money into the pockets of the paper-pushers who are going to get to trade this stuff, but it is not going to change the climate one little bit. I do not know about you, colleagues, but to me that is just stupidity. It is absolute stupidity to place in front of this country legislation of this nature that is going to have the impact it will have, yet the intended outcome of the legislation—to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions—is not going to happen. So what is the point? This is why people around the country are so furious about the government bringing in this carbon tax. It is interesting that when we look at what the government says—and you cannot trust them, really, with everything we have seen from them—

Senator Cormann: Australians don't.

Senator NASH: Australians don't. Thank you, Senator Cormann, I will take that—Australians don't. You only have to look at the government's track record to know that you cannot trust them. There are a couple of things they do not go near. One is regional Australia, which Senator Cormann quite rightly referred to, and I will get there shortly. The other thing they never refer to is longevity of compensation. The interesting thing is that they are trying to go out and put oil across the water, saying to people: 'Don't worry. There will be compensation. Nine out of 10 families will be compensated. It will all be okay.' The Australian people do not trust that they can deliver anything given the track record on things like pink batts and BER halls and everything else that the government have touched that has gone to absolute mud. They simply do not trust that that can even be delivered.

As I said earlier, the Australian people simply do not want an emissions trading scheme. They said that many, many months ago now. But we are moving to an emissions trading scheme. This is something that is very rarely discussed in the context of the current debate. In 2015 we will get to the point where the carbon tax becomes an emissions trading scheme—the very thing that the Australian people went into revolt about not so long ago when the government first had it flagged, the very thing. We are going to get to an emissions trading scheme. What happens when we get to an emissions trading scheme? We have a fluctuating price.

I do not know if any of my good colleagues here or any others have actually heard from the government about how they plan to compensate when the price is fluctuating. I do not know. Are they planning to compensate that far? Maybe they could actually give us a bit more detail. Perhaps the minister could jump in this debate. Maybe we will have to wait for the substantive debate on this particular issue. What is going to happen? Is the compensation going to go that far? How do you actually compensate on a daily basis when there is a fluctuating price? Has anybody thought about that? Has anybody thought to ask the government how they plan to do that? If that compensation that they are so solidly and certainly talking about is going to go very far anyway, how on earth is it going to work under an emissions trading scheme? They do not know what the price is. Can you just imagine, at the very least—Senator Cormann, I am sure you have thought of this—the bureaucratic nightmare of having to deliver compensation under a fluctuating price, let alone a regulated price under a carbon tax? It is quite extraordinary.

Just on the bureaucratic cost, one wonders what the government is going to say. Again I am sure this will come up during the substantive debate and I am sure we are going to have a lengthy committee stage to allow these sorts of issues to be aired—unless the government is going to continue to guillotine us, which I think would be quite appalling and inappropriate when the Australian people at least deserve some scrutiny of this. One wonders exactly what they are going to say when we get to that point. How is it go going to work, I wonder. There are so many unanswered questions that I am sure the government cannot even answer. They simply do not have a clue.

The government have been pushed by the Greens to bring in this carbon tax. As colleagues have discussed earlier today, that is what has happened. The government have done a backflip because they have got this cobbled-together Greens-Independent-Labor government, which is no way to run a democracy, and I am guessing they had no choice. Isn't it interesting, for those who are listening, to be very well aware that the Greens have 10 members and senators. There are 226 members and senators in this parliament, yet the Greens are telling the government what to do. You tell me how democratic that is, colleagues. You tell me what sort of democracy that is when we have got 10 members out of a 226-member parliament telling the government what to do. And good luck to them; that is the way it fell out The Prime Minister was so desperate to govern under any circumstances, to stay Prime Minister—I do not know how long that is going to last—that she was prepared to cobble together this government. That is simply not democracy. It is an undemocratic government because we have not got the majority of people having their say.

If we had at this point the majority of people in this country having their say, there would be no carbon tax. That leads to the question: why won't the government wait until after the next election to bring in the carbon tax? We could go through all this now; we could go through all the motions. It can go through the chamber. But why not have the start date of the carbon tax after the next election, whenever that might be—sooner, later, who knows? Why won't the government do that? To me that simply seems fair. The Prime Minister would then be saying to the Australian people: 'Look, I didn't really mean to lie to you before the last election. I am really sorry I told you there was not going to be a carbon tax. But I really believe in this carbon tax and I believe in it so much and I believe you will too, so I will go to another election and give you an opportunity to have your say.' Wouldn't you do that? I think anybody with any confidence that what they were putting forward was something that the majority of the Australian people would want would do that. They would do that without any shadow of a doubt.

We can deduce that the only reason this Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, will not have the start date for the carbon tax after the next election is she knows the majority of the Australian people do not want it and that they will vote the Labor government out. Otherwise, why wouldn't she do it? It makes perfect sense. Give the Australian people a say. One of the things I love about this country is that we are a democracy, that you do have the opportunity to have your voice heard, that you do have the opportunity to have your say. But apparently not—apparently not under this Prime Minister, because she can tell you one thing, do entirely the other and then still not give you the opportunity to have your say. That I think is what makes this one of the saddest days in this nation's history. To watch that legislation go through the House of Representatives, to watch that happen today, knowing it is a piece of legislation that will hurt the Australian people and that will do absolutely nothing when it comes to the intent of the government is sad, stupid and, quite frankly, appalling. I think it just goes to show the level that this government has gone to to stay in power. It is really quite extraordinary. Colleagues, the impact on regional Australia is going to be huge. This will have to wait for another day, because time precludes me now from going through all those impacts. But, as my colleagues from regional areas right around this chamber and the other place know, regional Australia is going to be hit harder than anywhere else. Farmers are the bottom of the food chain. There is nowhere for these costs to be passed on to. The costs of fuel, transport, fertiliser and electricity are all going to land in the lap of the farmers. It is all going to land on those regional agricultural businesses. There is no escape for them. They cannot get away from the impact this carbon tax is going to have on them, and that is wrong.

That is what we on this side of the chamber will keep fighting against. I can only promise the Australian people that we will not stop. This carbon tax may have gone through the House of Representatives and it may well get through the Senate, but we will not stop. We absolutely promise the Australian people that, in government, the coalition will get rid of this carbon tax and make sure Australia has a better future.

Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia) (17:38): I rise to support the arguments put so eloquently by my colleague Senator Fifield and by other colleagues—Senators Abetz, Cormann, Joyce and Nash—that the Senate should deny the government's move that these carbon tax bills proceed without formalities and that the Senate should deny the government's move that these bills be taken together. I do so because we have seen an absolute failure of the parliamentary scrutiny process to date, and this is the only opportunity we have. This chamber is the only thing standing between these bills and their becoming the law of Australia.

This chamber should give these bills full, thorough and proper parliamentary scrutiny. If that means taking a pathway that differs from what we usually do when we consider packages of legislation then we should do that to ensure we have proper scrutiny. Have these bills had had any decent scrutiny in the other place? No, they certainly have not. They were subject to a gag order. They were subject to what is politely described as 'time management'. How much consideration in detail did these bills have? Just a few hours last night. That was all they had for what we in the Senate paraphrase as the 'committee stage'. When it came to looking at the detail of the legislation, they had just a few hours last night in the House of Representatives.

That is just not good enough for a package of this size and of this scale and with the impact it will have on the Australian community. This is a vast package. As Senator Joyce highlighted when he brought the whole pack of legislation into the chamber, we are talking about 19 separate bills totalling more than 1,100 pages of new legislation. That, of course, is before all the explanatory memoranda that go with it are added on. It is a vast and sweeping package with vast and sweeping implications.

The other place rammed it through. The government, combined with their cohorts from the Greens and the crossbench, provided just a few hours of consideration in detail last night, and that was all we saw. Yes, there has been a parliamentary inquiry into this—a joint select committee that Senator Cormann and I had, dare I say, the misfortune of serving on. Frankly, it was a farcical process that did not stand true to what we in the Senate would expect as proper committee scrutiny of legislation.

It took just around three weeks from the motion to establish the committee to the committee's reporting. Within that time just six days, including a weekend, were provided to the Australian people to make submissions on this vast, sweeping package of more than 1,100 pages. The Australian people nonetheless responded. More than 4½ thousand people made submissions during that process. Yet, overwhelmingly, those submissions were not only ignored by the Labor Party, the Greens and the Independents but actually silenced. They were not accepted as submissions. They were not published as submissions in the usual way. They were locked out of the process.

I am just happy that the coalition members of that select inquiry at least took the time to look at the submissions, took the time to read them and took the time to quote from hundreds of them in the committee's report. Equally, the farcical inquiry into these sweeping bills did not get the chance to hear from them. No. Again, the numbers on this committee were nine Labor-Green-Independent members against five coalition members. The Independent was Mr Windsor, who developed the legislation, and the Greens were Senator Milne and Mr Bandt, both of whom, with Mr Windsor, served on the multiparty committee that developed this legislation.

So it was the proponents of this legislation who dominated the inquiry into it and obviously came to a predetermined outcome. They were the ones who set where the committee would go and who it would hear from. Despite requests from the opposition that the committee travel to Mackay in Queensland—your home state, Madam Acting Deputy President Boyce—and hear from the industries and the workers in Mackay and the people of North Queensland their views on this carbon tax that will have an impact on the mining industry and other industries, including the tourism industry that is so important to that state, the Labor Party and their cohorts said no.

We saw a request from Mrs Gash—another member of the committee, from the other place—for the committee to travel to the Illawarra to hear from stakeholders in her region who were concerned. Frankly, it is not that far for the committee to go there from Canberra. But no: again, the Labor Party and their cohorts on the committee said no. We had a request from Senator Cormann that the committee travel to Perth, a city where, of course, the concern about this tax proposal is very real and where there are many, many industries that are worried—particularly, of course, Australia's mining industry, which has such a foothold in Perth. Again the Labor Party and their cohorts said no. Where did they decide they would take evidence on this legislation? You may be surprised to learn that we had two days of hearings in Canberra, one day in Melbourne and one day in Sydney—a really great representation of Australian viewpoint!

Senator Payne interjecting—

Senator BIRMINGHAM: A broad representation indeed, Senator Payne—quite astounding. We saw that with this legislation, of such sweeping effect, the parliamentary inquiry into it did not get outside the Melbourne-Sydney-Canberra triangle. It is just outrageous. If any part of this parliament should be outraged, of course, it should be the Australian Senate. It should be the place in which the states, with their equal representation, deserve to have a fair say heard—where the smaller states, the more distant states and the more disparate regions are meant to get their voices heard. Yet they were silenced throughout that inquiry process.

So, yes, we do seek to deny leave for these bills to proceed without formalities, we do seek to deny leave for them to be taken together and we do so because the parliamentary committee process has let us down, because the House of Representatives has let us down and because the government has let the Australian people down. Therefore we want to make sure that this Senate does not follow suit and let the Australian people down again. I fear the Senate will. I fear that the Labor-Greens majority that is in here nowadays will ultimately want to steamroll it through the Senate as well—that ultimately they will apply a gag in this place and deny the opportunity for full and thorough scrutiny of every bit of this vast and sweeping legislative package. But we will try to stop them and we will try to ensure that there is proper consideration.

In looking at the consideration that happened in the other place, I took the opportunity to look at what some of the Labor MPs from my home state had to say about these proposals in the other place—those members who spoke on the carbon tax package. There may not have been much consideration in detail—there was very little, as I said just last night—but many members took the opportunity to give speeches in the second reading debate, and I thought it was interesting to look at what some of those members said. Mr Georganas, the member for Hindmarsh, said:

… the world is moving on this issue. This includes, of course, not just the UK, Europe, Canada, South Africa, South Korea and very large blocks within the United States; it includes China …

He may think that, he may say that and he may be able to come up with certain isolated examples, but to suggest that Canada is moving on this issue when in fact the re-elected government of Canada has stepped right away from implementing any carbon-pricing regime, has made it very clear that it has no intention of doing so and is tied emphatically to the type of action that the United States takes—a country that equally has no desire and is not likely to implement a nationwide carbon price—is just utterly misleading. He cites South Korea, a country where, yes, legislation for carbon pricing may have been introduced into the parliament but where it has been deferred; it was deferred in the face of widespread public criticism. He cites the United States, where, of course, we know that even the regional state-based schemes are shrinking back and shrinking back. California is basically the only place anybody can cite with any credibility now, and it has a scheme of minuscule scale compared with what is proposed for Australia. And, of course, he cites China. The government loves to keep citing China, but the evidence of the committee inquiry demonstrates that China's emissions keep going up and up and up. They have no nationwide carbon price in place. When it comes to carbon pricing, we are talking at best about the tiniest regional programs at very small, trial-scale level that obviously are nothing like what this government is proposing here.

Let me turn to some other comments of Mr Georganas. There is one that I think is a doozy of a comment. Mr Georganas said in his contribution in the other place on these bills that the Labor Party has been the 'party of consistency' on this issue—the party of consistency!

Senator Payne interjecting—

Senator BIRMINGHAM: Senator Payne asks whether he said it with a straight face. Unfortunately I have not gone back to get the video footage to see whether he said it with a straight face.

Senator Ronaldson: They are consistently inconsistent.

Senator BIRMINGHAM: Senator Ronaldson is correct: they are consistently inconsistent. This is the party that under Mr Rudd stood for an ETS until Mr Rudd changed his mind after Copenhagen and said it was not the time for an ETS. Then Ms Gillard rolled Mr Rudd, and she stood against both an ETS and a carbon tax. In fact, as we all know and as many people have said already in this place and in this debate, Ms Gillard uttered those immortal words, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' She uttered them just days before the election. She did have a climate change policy: it was for a citizens' assembly. That was her climate change policy. Then, of course, after the election—after she had cobbled together a government with the support of the Greens—she changed her mind again and decided that she was for a carbon tax. So for Mr Georganas to suggest that Labor has been the party of consistency really does beggar belief.

Mr Georganas did indicate that we have heard that people will be worse off as a result of the carbon price flowing on to consumers but, as many Labor MPs did, went on to try to say that nine out of 10 households will receive compensation. Nine out of 10 will receive compensation, but it does not get away from the fact that, on the government's own estimates, three million households will be worse off under this proposal. At least three million will be worse off on the government's own estimates, and their modelling is highly optimistic about the extent of international action. They can model quite precisely what extra money will end up in the pockets of households, but the modelling is very imprecise about what the extra costs will be for those households. In fact, they need only be two per cent wrong in those costs for millions more households to be worse off as a result of this proposal.

It was not just Mr Georganas; we had Mr Zappia, the member for Makin, who also made a contribution—another member from my home state. He also sought to claim that other countries were taking action, although he gave an interesting list of countries. He said:

Finland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland, Ireland and the UK have all had an indirect or direct tax system that impacts on industries in those countries ... So it is not as though we are acting in isolation ...

Phew! Regardless of the accuracy or not of his comments, I am relieved to know that the Australian economy, with its competitors from around the world, is at least in line with Finland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland, Ireland and the UK. There is nothing wrong with any of those countries, of course. But, by and large, with one or two small exceptions, their economies hardly resemble the industrial mix and the mining mix of the Australian economy. This is not comparing apples with apples, Mr Zappia—far from it.

Mr Zappia also pointed out that the Productivity Commission noted that 89 countries that represent 80 per cent of global emissions and nearly 90 per cent of total GDP are already acting. He failed to point out that the Productivity Commission made extremely clear that no other country in the world has an economy-wide ETS or a carbon tax in place—no other country has anything like what this government is proposing.

Ms Rishworth, the member for Kingston in South Australia, also spoke on these bills. She said she was:

... proud that it is this Labor government that is bringing forward a ... plan to tackle climate change; a plan that will ensure that we reduce our carbon emissions ...

Let me deal firstly with her pride. If she is so proud of it, why did she not take it to the election? Is she is so proud of it, why does she not take it to an election? If she and all of those 72 members of the Labor Party in the House of Representatives are so proud of this proposal, why do they not have the courage of their convictions and take it to an election? Let the Australian people have a say. Let the Australian people say whether they are proud of their Labor representatives for introducing this. She said it is:

... a plan that will ensure that we reduce our carbon emissions ...

Unfortunately, that is just not true. It is a plan that will ensure that Australian companies spend billions of dollars buying permits from overseas to meet a target to reduce emissions. Australia's emissions will keep going up under this plan. Australia's emissions will be more in 2020 under this plan. It will not reduce our emissions at all. It is misleading to say so. What this plan actually facilitates is simply a multibillion-dollar transfer of funds by Australian companies into international carbon credits, many of which are of questionable operation or questionable value. It will facilitate the transfer of funds. Those Australian companies, if they can afford to actually purchase those credits, will then continue to emit within Australia. Australia's domestic emissions will keep going up and those companies will pass the cost of purchasing those permits onto their consumers, which will ultimately mean that Australian households will pay more as a result. Ms Rishworth also said:

It will mean that 500 of Australia's biggest polluters will pay for every tonne of carbon pollution they emit into our atmosphere.

But it is not just 500; there are sweeping changes in these bills that relate to fuel arrangements. Everybody who uses fuel for off-road purposes will face increased prices—tens of thousands of businesses around Australia will face increased prices. So it is not just the 500—in the refrigerant sector alone, hundreds more will face increased prices because of the treatment of certain gases. We know that, in fact, tens of thousands of businesses will directly pay increased prices and every Australian business will pay increased prices as a result of the flow-on effects.

Mr Champion, the member for Wakefield, spent basically his entire speech talking about anything but the government's carbon tax legislation. I will not rehash his comments about various coalition MPs and others who were the focus of his contribution. But, right at the end of his contribution, he said:

We are going to implement this practical solution to a practical problem. I think on 1 July next year everybody will shrug their shoulders and just get on with a prosperous economy and an increasingly efficient and green society and economy.

It is hardly a practical solution; it is a great big money-go-round—money goes round and round; billions of dollars go in, billions of dollars go out and the government is left with a multibillion-dollar deficit at the end of it. It is quite a remarkable situation—the government is introducing a multibillion-dollar new tax but will actually end up with a deficit of $4 billion-plus over the forward estimates period.

I would not want Ms Ellis, the member for Adelaide, to miss out as I roll through the South Australian Labor MPs. She argued it was reasonable:

Following the election where it became clear that no party had the numbers on the floor of this parliament to ... change—

the policy that they had. I would have thought that perhaps they could have mustered the numbers on the floor of the parliament for their citizens assembly as there have been plenty of other talkfests. We had two of them just last week. Ms Ellis ultimately also cited some of the same points such as 'only 500 companies' and 'reducing Australia's emissions'—points which I have already countered.

Lastly, there was one South Australian Labor MP who did not speak in the debate—Mr Butler, the member for Port Adelaide. I wonder why Mr Butler did not speak. Senator Cormann might know because he joined me in visiting some of the extremely emissions intensive industries that are located in Mr Butler's electorate of Port Adelaide—businesses like Adelaide Brighton and Penrice that will face enormous bills under this carbon tax. Mr Butler, like so many Labor MPs, just did not have the courage to say why he wants to impose this cost on them.

Senator LUDWIG: I move:

That the question be now put.

Question put.

The Senate divided. [18:03]

(The President—Senator Hogg)

Senator Arbib did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Coonan.

Question agreed to.

The PRESIDENT: The question now is that these bills may proceed without formalities.

The Senate divided. [18:08]

(The President—Senator Hogg)

Senator Arbib did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Coonan.

Question agreed to.

The PRESIDENT: The question now is that these bills may be taken together.

The Senate divided. [18:12]

(The President—Senator Hogg)

Senator Arbib did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Coonan.

Question agreed to.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that these bills be now read a first time.

The Senate divided [18:17]

(The President—Senator Hogg)

Senator Arbib did not vote , to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Coonan.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a first time.