Mr ABBOTT (Leader of the Opposition) (2:55 PM) —I move:

The Prime Minister today stood up before her caucus colleagues and said that she was very confident she could win a debate on the carbon tax. If she is so confident, why did she not have the debate before the last election? If she is so confident, why will she not have the debate with the next election? The fact of the matter is that this Prime Minister knows she cannot win any debate on a carbon tax because she knows (a) that it is bad policy and (b) that it is based on a lie.

We had the Treasurer stand up in this parliament today boasting—hysterically, almost—about what a courageous decision it was. I will tell you what, Mr Speaker: it would have been courageous to talk about it before the election. That is what courageous governments do: they talk about things before an election, not after an election. The courageous thing for this government to do now would be to seek a mandate for the carbon tax that it ruled out before the election and now has ruled in. If the Prime Minister and the Treasurer were so confident about the case for a carbon tax, why did they go to the last election running on a lie? They say that they want to give business certainty. If the Prime Minister was so keen to give business certainty, why did she sabotage the former Prime Minister’s campaign to have an emissions trading scheme in the last term of parliament? Perhaps it was not the Prime Minister who went in to see Kevin Rudd and sabotaged the ETS; perhaps it was a body double? Perhaps it was not the Prime Minister who stood up before the Channel 10 cameras during the election and said, ‘There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.’ Maybe it was a body double.

This is the Prime Minister who understands business so well. Oh yes, she knows what business wants. She knows that business demands certainty. The certainty that it is going to get from this government is the certainty of taxes, taxes and yet more taxes. That is the last certainty that the businesses of Australia want—higher taxes. I have a little lesson for the Prime Minister and for the Treasurer. Higher taxes do not generate more investment. Higher taxes do not improve an economy. Business might want certainty, but it does not want the certainty of ever more taxes under a government that it just cannot trust.

Let me remind the House of these words that should echo around this chamber every day between now and the next election—these words that will haunt the Prime Minister every day that is left to her in this parliament. She said: ‘There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead. I rule out a carbon tax.’ The truth is—I regret to say it of the person who holds the highest elected office in this country—that she told a lie to win votes and she broke a promise to form a government. It was a breach of faith—

The SPEAKER —Order! I remind the Leader of the Opposition that this is a motion for the suspension of standing and sessional orders. It is not a substantive motion and therefore he should be very careful with his language. On that occasion he should withdraw the remark.

Mr ABBOTT —In deference I withdraw. I accept your admonition but I am entitled to say, Mr Speaker, that this Prime Minister broke faith with the Australian public. This Prime Minister behaved in a contemptible way by telling a deliberate untruth to the Australian people before the last election.

It is very important that we suspend standing orders and we give this Prime Minister a chance to come clean. Why did she say it? Why did she say, ‘There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead’? Did she think a carbon tax was bad in principle? Did she suffer from blind political panic just a few days out from an election? The Prime Minister must have known at that stage of the parliament that the Greens were likely to hold a balance of power in the Senate, so we cannot have any of this subsequent rationalisation, any of this obfuscation: ‘Everything changes after polling day.’ She knew full well that the Greens were likely to have a balance of power in the Senate and she knew full well that the Greens wanted a carbon tax. So why, oh why, did this Prime Minister stand up and say repeatedly, ‘There will be no carbon tax under a government that I lead’?

But that is not the only untruth that we heard from the Prime Minister during the election campaign. Remember the climate change citizens’ assembly? Remember the 12 months that the Prime Minister was going to spend building consensus? Well, 12 months have not passed; consensus has not been achieved and yet we now have, in total breach of faith with the Australian people, a carbon tax foisted on the Australian people by this bad, untrustworthy, lying government.

Let’s not hear any more from this Prime Minister, ‘I’m following the John Howard precedent.’ John Howard was a gutsy Prime Minister. John Howard was prepared to tell people before an election what he wanted to do. He would never have said one thing before an election and done something completely different after an election. So let us be absolutely crystal clear about what this government is doing: this government has broken faith with the Australian people. This government is seeking to do what this parliament has no mandate to do. This Prime Minister is asking this parliament to engage in a conspiracy against the Australian people.

Only one member of this parliament—the member for Melbourne—had the guts to say to the people before the election, ‘I support a carbon tax.’ Not one single member of this parliament apart from him had the guts to say that. This parliament has no mandate for a carbon tax. For this parliament to seek to impose a carbon tax would be a betrayal of democracy. It would be a betrayal of the Prime Minister’s word. It would be a betrayal of any trust between the people and the government. Any carbon tax that is legislated by this parliament would be the l-i-e lie tax. I would like to think that deep within the heart of even this Prime Minister is the desire not to live a lie. So do not put this tax in; seek a mandate first—

The SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition will withdraw.

Mr ABBOTT —I besought the Prime Minister not to live a lie but if—

The SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will withdraw.

Mr ABBOTT —that is offensive I withdraw.

The SPEAKER —Is the motion seconded?

Mr Ewen Jones interjecting—

The SPEAKER —The member for Herbert is warned.

Mr Albanese —I rise on a simple point of order. You asked the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw. He knows how to do it and he should do it properly.

The SPEAKER —I believe he withdrew, eventually. He withdrew.