Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (09:40): The Australian Labor Party have always had nothing but unbridled contempt for the Australian Senate. It was long the platform of the Australian Labor Party to have the Australian Senate abolished. They might as well put that back in their platform because today the Australian Labor Party have declared that they no longer see a role for scrutiny in the Australian Senate. The Australian Labor Party have given up any pretence of going through the barest motions of parliamentary scrutiny on this carbon tax legislation package. What we are seeing today is extraordinary. We are seeing what is in effect a gag on a gag. It was bad enough that the government put in place a gag to come into effect at the end of next Thursday, but bringing that forward to Tuesday morning next week represents a direct attack on the fundamental role of this chamber to provide scrutiny of legislation. Senator Chris Evans, at the same time he was proposing with one hand the extra sitting week next week—which we were all meant to be extremely grateful for—was taking with the other hand by putting in place a guillotine motion. Senator Evans's media release of 21 September said: ... the Senate will have more than two full weeks to debate the Clean Energy package of Bills. We were entitled to take the government at face value and believe that there would be two full weeks to debate the clean energy package of bills. It was not nearly enough; there should have been in the order of five months to consider something of this magnitude. That was the period provided to consider the goods and services tax legislation, the new tax system legislation, which did not have nearly the far-reaching economic consequences of this carbon tax package. We were meant to be grateful for two full weeks. That is what the government and Senator Evans undertook to provide for this package of bills. We will not have two full weeks, as Senator Evans promised, for the consideration of this legislation. We will not even have 1½ weeks. This week was meant to be fully dedicated to the second reading debate. Next week was meant to be completely given over to the committee stage of this legislation. But all stages of this package of 18 bills will now be concluded by 11 o'clock or 12 o'clock on Tuesday morning—not even a day and a half for the committee stage of legislation of this magnitude. In my seven years in this chamber I have never seen anything as audacious as this. When we were the government we were lectured time and again by the Australian Labor Party about the importance of scrutiny and the importance of the Senate as a house of review. We were told time and again that the Labor Party in office were going to be so much better; that the Labor Party were going to establish new standards of accountability, new standards of scrutiny, new standards of probity, new standards of propriety—and apparently new standards of administrative competency as well. None of that has come to pass. I find it difficult to believe that Senator Ludwig, who is a straight shooter, has agreed with this course of action today. I think he has been given his orders by the Prime Minister and I think he has also been given a set of orders by the government's coalition partner, the Australian Greens. How do we know that? I will leave you hanging as to how we know that the Australian Greens really issued the order for this, because I have a feeling Senator Abetz may have something to add on that. So I will just leave you hanging. Another outrage with this motion is the fact that GetUp! seem to have known about the decision to bring the carbon tax legislation to a vote on Tuesday before the Australian Senate knew. The government advised the opposition yesterday afternoon of their intention, but, when you jump on the web, you see that GetUp! have had buses booked for a couple of days to bring people from Sydney, Melbourne and from all over Australia for the grand celebration of the passage of the carbon tax legislation. Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting— Senator FIFIELD: If you thought that we saw scenes of celebration and jubilation in the House of Representatives when the carbon tax package passed that place, you ain't seen nothing yet compared to what they have planned for Tuesday next week. Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting— Senator FIFIELD: We saw disgraceful scenes in the other place when the carbon tax package legislation went through—disgraceful scenes, with government ministers kissing, embracing and whooping it up that the carbon tax legislation had passed. What they were really doing was whooping it up, embracing each other and congratulating each other because they had completed the first stage— Senator Milne: Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. Senator Ian Macdonald referred to the young people involved as the 'Hitler Youth'. I find that extremely offensive and I ask him to withdraw. Senator Ian Macdonald: On the point of order, Mr Deputy President: before you take any instructions, I suggest you hear what was actually said to Senator Milne. I repeat it now: 'GetUp! is the Hitler Youth wing of the Greens political movement,' and I stand by that. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: There is no point of order, Senator Milne, but I would remind senators that interjections and speaking when not given the call is disorderly. Senator FIFIELD: When we saw government ministers in the other place shaking each other's hands and giving each other hugs to celebrate the passage of the carbon tax legislation, they were celebrating the first stage in a breach of promise to the Australian people. Prime Minister Julia Gillard put her hand on her heart and declared on one of the morning TV shows, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' Treasurer Swan said that anyone who did not believe that was being hysterical, that anyone who doubted the Prime Minister was 'an hysteric'. So we had hand on heart, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead,' with no qualifications. That was a commitment and it is a breach of that commitment which was being celebrated in the other place. Such is their contempt for the Australian people. That was the first stage in their breach of promise. We are now well down the path for the completion of the second stage of the breach of promise and the Greens and GetUp! are already gathering for that celebration. We can understand the Greens and GetUp! celebrating, because for all their faults the Greens at least have had a consistent policy that they want to impose a carbon tax on Australians. They were at least upfront about this, but the true travesty, the true outrage, is that the Australian Labor Party want to join in those celebrations and will join in those celebrations. This is deceit on a massive scale. Senator Ludwig said that we prefer on this side to continue to debate procedural motions, that we do not want to debate the substance of the legislation. I could not disagree more strongly because these procedural motions are of great note, of great significance. The procedural motions which the government are moving are part of the facilitation of the breach of promise. For the opposition in any way, shape or form to turn a blind eye, to wave through procedural motions of this nature, would make us complicit in the breach of promise to the Australian people. We cannot do that. This is not just a procedural motion; this goes to the very essence of the breach of promise because, had the government not broken their commitment to the Australian people, we would not be debating this procedural motion. There would not be a need; there would be no legislation. We have to hold this government to account. We have to remind the Senate at every opportunity that this government is seeking to break its ironclad commitment and we will not be complicit for one second in what the government is intending to do. I have something here which I think will make you laugh. Senator Evans's press release from yesterday announcing that the guillotine was to be brought forward from Thursday next to Tuesday next, was headed—and this is almost Pythonesque—'Extended sitting hours for Senate to pass legislation', the clean energy package. So 'extended sitting hours' is now how we describe a gag on a gag. That is how we describe a guillotine being brought forward from one day to another, and that is as an extension of sitting hours! You could have fooled me. I thought that was a limitation of sitting hours. I thought that was reducing debate. I thought that was curtailing scrutiny. I thought that was limiting the opportunity for senators to do their job, but no. Apparently the way we extend hours is by reducing them! This is bizarre. What planet are these people on? They extend hours by reducing them. This is madness. I am not speechless but I must confess to being gobsmacked. It is bad enough that this government formed office on the back of a lie. It is bad enough that this government fibbed to the Australian people. It is bad enough that they are seeking to breach their solemn election commitment. What the government should do is immediately withdraw this legislation. They should discharge these bills. They should go to an election and seek the mandate of the people. They should seek the verdict of the people—the verdict the people were denied the opportunity to render at the last election. But we know they are not going to do that and we know that they are committed to breaking their election commitment. That is bad enough, but the least that you would expect this government to do to regain a little bit of dignity, to regain a little bit of decency, is to have a proper parliamentary process, proper parliamentary scrutiny. The lie was bad enough, but there should at least be decent parliamentary scrutiny— Senator Ronaldson: At a minimum. Senator FIFIELD: at a minimum. We on this side of the chamber have all said time and again that we think a period of something of the order of five months would be appropriate to consider legislation of this magnitude, as was the case with the new tax system legislation, where we had multiple Senate committees inquiring at the same time. I will just put to one side the fact that we took the goods and services tax to an election before deciding to put the legislation into parliament. I will just leave that to one side as a mere technicality, because I know that is all the government see it as—a mere technicality. There should be something of the order of five months, but we know that this government is not committed to serious parliamentary scrutiny. You would have thought, though, having rushed it through the House of Representatives, that they would at least go through the barest of motions of parliamentary scrutiny in the Senate. The first thing you would do is you would have a decent Senate committee inquiry, and that would involve having multiple Senate committees inquiring at the same time into different aspects of the bills. That is something that the opposition proposed and the government said: 'No, we prefer having a mickey mouse joint committee that was racked and stacked.' The 18 or 19 bills were racked in there and the membership was stacked to ensure a preordained outcome. Senator Cormann and Senator Birmingham did their best on that committee to at least bring a modicum of scrutiny. They did an outstanding job, but the numbers were against them. The outcome was a foregone conclusion. You would have thought that there would at least be a decent Senate committee inquiry process. This chamber has always jealously guarded its prerogative to undertake scrutiny the way it sees fit. In this chamber, we are not too fussed if those in the other place have their own committees. That is fine. They can do what they want. We are not too fussed if there is a joint committee. Joint committees can do what they want. But this chamber jealously guards its prerogatives and its rights, and this chamber was denied the opportunity to exercise that function of review, that function of scrutiny, by the Australian Labor Party and by the Australian Greens. Having had that opportunity for scrutiny denied, we thought at the very least the government would provide a reasonable amount of time. It would not be enough, but at least it might at face value look like an attempt at some decent parliamentary scrutiny. And what do we see? We thought the government would give two weeks to this chamber. Senator Evans said in his press release that the Senate would have more than two full weeks to debate the clean energy package of bills. That is not enough, not nearly enough, but we thought: 'Well, they have denied proper scrutiny in the House of Representatives—they rushed it through—and they denied the opportunity for Senate committees to meet and inquire, they have denied a decent length of time for the Senate itself to consider these bills, but at least they will honour the two weeks that they committed to. At least they will do that.' No. Senator Evans's words are not worth the paper they are written on. Never again will we believe a word that Senator Evans says—never again. Why would we? This is black and white. But we should not be surprised. This is a government that finds it as easy as getting up in the morning to say, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead,' and then, 'Sorry, we lied—there will be.' If you do not struggle with deceit of that magnitude, merely fibbing to this place about having two full weeks of debate will come very easily. So we should not be surprised. Why, therefore, should we or the Australian people believe this government when it says: 'Don't worry about the cost implications for the household budget of a carbon tax—you'll get decent compensation. Don't worry, business, about the cost implications of a carbon tax—you'll get decent compensation. Don't worry about the rise in the carbon tax over time—we will increase the compensation'? If you cannot believe that the government would stick to its word not to introduce a carbon tax, if you cannot believe it when it commits to two full weeks of scrutiny of the carbon tax in this place, why should anyone believe that compensation for the carbon tax will be adequate? You cannot believe a word those on the other side say. Madam Acting Deputy President Moore, welcome. It is good to see you in the chair. I will not ascribe any particular thoughts to you on this issue. That would be quite wrong. So I will instead ascribe them to someone else in this chamber—Senator Faulkner. I think that Senator Faulkner would be absolutely disgusted by what is occurring here today. Senator Faulkner holds himself up as a paragon of virtue. I think Senator Faulkner is possessed of a bit of integrity and a bit of decency. He has styled himself as one of the custodians of the rights and prerogatives of this chamber, as an elder statesman who is committed to proper parliamentary scrutiny. I think Senator Faulkner would be disgusted at what we are seeing here today. The Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Evans, committed to two full weeks of scrutiny of the carbon tax package of bills, only to completely go back on his word, only to put a gag on a gag. I would hope that inside the Australian Labor Party there is great angst about this. It is bad enough that the Australian people were lied to. I will not say it is worse that proper parliamentary process and scrutiny is not being brought to bear. I will not say that it is worse, because nothing could be worse than lying to the Australian people. But this is shameless. This is outrageous. It is disgusting that the Australian Senate is being denied the opportunity to provide decent scrutiny of the most economically significant package of legislation to be brought before this place in living memory. I hope we do not see something of its like again. I really hope we do not. In a sense, this is not a partisan issue. I would have hoped that all senators were committed to this chamber doing its job. It does not matter if the positions of the various parties are already determined. It does not matter if it is highly likely that this legislation will go through this place. This chamber still has a job to do to scrutinise legislation. This chamber still has a job to do to hold the government to account. This chamber is being denied this opportunity and the government should be condemned. (Time expired)