Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Disclaimer: The Parliamentary Library does not warrant the accuracy of closed captions. These are derived automatically from the broadcaster's signal.
ABC News 24: Afternoon Live -

View in ParlView

(generated from captions) member for Cowan. My question

is to the Treasurer.

Treasurer, will the carbon tax

apply to the oil refineries

that create the fuel that goes in vehicles and to in vehicles and to the transport businesses that cart

the fuel that Meaning that inevitably consumer will pay higher prices

in spite of the Government's

latest carbon tax promise latest carbon tax promise to

the house. Yes, Mr Speaker. exempt petrol. The leader of

Standing Order 98D 21 very clear. It is very Standing Order 98D subsection

clear that the Government has

said we will and announcing our

policy on Sunday. Order!

Order! Order! Order! know it is frustrating for

those opposite who don't have a

policy, Mr Speaker. Order!

The leader of the house has the leader of the house. Yes, Mr call on a point of order. The

Speaker, and the Standing

Orders are very clear in this

member for regard. Order. Order! The

member for metropolitan cease will resume his place. The

question is in order. The

Treasurer has the call. Mr

Speaker, as I've already said,

and I think on two occasions today

providing further detail and that further detail will that further detail will be

provided on Sunday. We've made that abundantly clear. Mr Speaker, we've seen this campaign that's been running Speaker, we've seen this scare

for months now, but on Sunday most of this scare campaign

will go up in smoke, because all of these wild exaggerations, all of the

claims and counterclaims, Mr

Speaker, will be exposed for Further detail will be there on the falsehoods that they are.

Sunday. The member for Throsby. Thank you, Mr speaker.

My question is for

Efficiency. Will the Minister For Climate Change and Energy

update the House on the Government's plan to introduce

a price on carbon pollution as

the cheapest and most effective

way to cut pollution? What other options have been

advanced and how is the Government's plan been received? What's the

Order. I will allow the

question because I did not

think the member for Throsby was seeking announcement of policy. The Minister For

Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. I thank you very

much Mr Speaker. I thank much Mr Speaker. I thank the

member for Throsby for his

course it is very well question. Mr Speaker, of

recognised that putting a

market price, a carbon price on

carbon pollution is the

cheapest and most effective way to reduce pollution. Mr Speaker, it is a view, of course, that's supported course, that's supported by

many institutions, the IFF, OECD, Productivity Commission, OECD, Productivity

around the country. The the Treasury, economists all

government recognises that

the introduction of a which is why we're committed to

price in the mechanism that the introduction of a carbon

we'll nouns on Sunday as cheapest most efficient way of

putt cutting pollution in our

economy. This contrasts

strikingly with the Opposition leaders' subsidies for polluters' scheme where from the taxpayers' purse, where the Leader of the from the taxpayers' purse, but

Opposition is the one who picks

and chooses who gets a Mr Speaker, in comparing the and chooses who gets a subsidy.

Government's carbon price

proposal to the Leader of the

Opposition's subsidies for

polluters' program, the Chief Executive officers of National Australia Bank, Mr Executive officers of the

Ma'am Cameron said if you're asking for a economic

assessment of the two policies

a carbon price followed by the

ETS is economically

It will drive investment and so as a straight comparison

between the two, that's the

choice. That is the CEO of the National Australia Bank making

clear that the Government's

policy position is the only way

to go. It is no wonder the opposition cannot find a single economist to support their proposition and as proposition and as previously stated by the Member for Wentworth, of policy proposal that's a fig

leaf that can be easily scrapped.

the Leader of the scrapped. That doesn't worry

the Leader of the Opposition in

his approach to this issue.

in Adelaide today... The When he was asked on ABC Radio

member was warned before. He

must acknowledge that. When the asked today on ABC Radio in Leader of the Opposition was

Adelaide about his subsidies

for polluters' plans and in

particular, the plan to plant trees to prevent change, this was what the

exchange involved. The host

asked the following: where are

you going to plant all these trees and how are you going to

water them? The Leader of the Opposition water them?

Opposition replied: well I'm

not saying that tree planting

is the whole answer, but it is part of the answer. The host

then said: how many trees do

you plan to plant? The Leader of the Opposition said: well

of the Opposition said: well

that depends on what proposals

we get and how cost effective

the proposals are, but there

are all sorts of this. There's a great of

specificity in this proposal,

isn't there? The fact of the

matter, Mr Speaker,... Order!

Those on my left. Not a bit

sensitive, are you, mate. Order!

Order! Those on my left will

come to order. The Minister will refer his remarks through

the chair. Order! Order! The fact of the matter is the

Leader of the Opposition

department of climate change doesn't have a clue about his

has had a look at this tree planting proposition, as the

Prime Minister was noting

before, the subsidies for polluters' policy would require

trees to be planted in an area five times the size five times the size of

the Sydney Basin, and roughly Tasmania, 23 times the size of

the same area that's covered Germany. That's what the subsidies for polluters policy

means. I wonder if the nabl

party has worked out this means planting trees all country. The fact of the

matter is the opposition's policy is a joke. The only policy is a joke. The only way

to deal with this issue is by

Amar Mexican a market

mechanism. Order! The leader

of the Nationals. Order! Those on my right will contain

themselves. There's a certain inevitability about this and leader of the Nationals has the

call. The leader of the Nationals. Thank you very Mr Speaker. My question is

directly to the Minister for

transport. Let's hope he'll be

eager to eager to answer the question.

I refer the Minister to the transport worker's union

secretary Tony shell done's statement that a carbon price

on diesel fuel will put on diesel fuel will put more financial pressure on truckies

and this will mean and I quote, "more fatalities, more injuries and a

road user in this country." Does the minagree with Labor Senator Glenn Sterle's for

truck tease to be fully protected for the damage to be wrought by the Government's carbon tax. The minister for

infrastructure and transport. The Member for North Sydney,

Order! The question has been

asked. The Minister will asked. The Minister will now respond. I thank very much, very sincerely, the Shadow

Minister for this question. I waited more than two years for

a question from a question from the Shadow

Minister and I say to him, he

can wait five more sleeps for an answer. Order! Order! Order! Order! Order! Order!

Order.

The member for Fowler. Thank you Mr Speaker. My question

to the Assistant Treasurer and minister

minister for financial services

and superannuation. Will the

Assistant Treasurer outline the economic forces at work Australia's transitional Australia's transitional economy and what is the

Government's plans to tackle these challenges

any obstacles? The Assistant Treasurer, the Treasurer, the Minister for financial services and New

South Wales. Order! South Wales. Order! There is only one person that has the call. It is the Assistant

Treasurer. He will be heard in silence. The Assistant Treasurer. I thank the member

for Fowler for his question.

He's right Australia is an

economy in transition. We're experiencing transformative forces which will forces which will happen

regardless who have is in

power. These forces are well

known. We're living Asia is re emerging at prime

economic region of the world.

We're heading toward as a lower pollution environment and a

more sustainable world. We

recognise that the role of the digital information will continue and expand and of course we're growing our

services economy. What these

forces mean is that we need to

have good public policy, not

just relentless neglect fist if

we are to be able to handle and

manage a economy in transition.

This means that This means that Australia

should not be afraid of the future. plans have included enabling

the creation of 258,000 new

jobs in the last 12 months

alone. We will price carbon alone. We will price carbon to

create a low pollution economy and a clean and a clean technology industry. We'll share the

prosperity of the mining boom by cutting by cutting company tax and lifting compulsory

superannuation from 9 to 12% to

ensure that millions of Australians have more Australians have more adequate

retirement income. We're

managing an economy in

transition for our training. We're certainly

intending to bring the budget

to surplus by 2012-13. We have a massive pipeline a massive pipeline of 430 billion dollars billion dollars of future investment in the investment in the mining industry and certainly we are

intend to further engage with a

growing middle class in Asia.

I was asked what are threats to

these plans? What are the

threats to an economy in transition. I

transition. I believe there's

a very clear and present danger

to the plans for a successful

future for Australia. This is the threat of low expectations, the tyranny of low expectations, the fear of the

future, the obsession by future, the obsession by those opposite to freeze the

Australian economy in the past. The threat is most clearly by the relentless negativity of the Leader of the Opposition.

On any question he will

On any question he will always

say no. He doesn't not want to

increase superannuation. He

does not want to decrease company

company tax. He doesn't want

to have a price on carbon. He

doesn't want GP super doesn't want GP super clinics. Don't like National Broadband schools and libraries. He

doesn't want Malcolm Turnbull

to talk. He's so negative, the Leader of the Opposition, that

the Member for Hume in the Liberal Party meeting this

morning had to say why is it, Leader of the Opposition, Leader of the Opposition, we know what happened, that know what happened, that you

have a staff member gagging us from being able to speak? The

Member for Hume is a Member for Hume is a freedom

fighter. He'll stand up. Then

what the Member for Hume was told in the Liberal Party room this morning, mate, mate, we're just making suggestions on

being good team players. Unfortunately, at the same time as the Liberal Party room as the Liberal Party room is meeting in this negativity, the truth hurts

doesn't it. The tapbt

Treasurer will resume his

place. Order! Order. Order.

Order! The member for Menzies on a point of order. Direct

relevant, Mr Speaker. How can this possibly be directly relevant to the question? Order! The assistance

Treasurer will resume his place for a second. The question talked about threats or

obstacles, I can't remember and

can't read my own writing, so I

can't remember which it was.

There has been an attempt made by the Minister to directly

relate his remarks to

comment, but it is overly laden with debate which is again

something that I'm concerned

with, but I have indicated

before that if the before that if the debate's

directly relevant, it is

allowed. However, regrettable

I might think that is and the

Assistant Treasurer has the

call. I was asked about threats

to the future of an economy to the future of an economy in

transition. One of the threats

to the future, as said, say

relentless negativity. This relentless to gagging Malcolm Turnbull all the time. As the time. As the Member for

Hume was asking his question,

at the meeting of Liberal press

secretaries, I know you're

smiling Joe, the meeting of Liberal press secretaries, the Leader of the Opposition's

press secretary says mate,

mate, if the Sunday show ask your boss to come television, check with us and

if we don't want you to go on television, don't tell them

that we said no. The Opposition's making Opposition's making such an art

form of negativity they have no policies, on the Member for North Sydney...

The tapbt Treasurer will bring his remarks to a conclusion.

We all know why they've almost

no policies, they have got It is bring back Work Choices

in industrial relations.

Order! The house... Order!

Order. The house will come to

order. Order! Order.

(Background

interjections). Order! The

house will come to order.

Order. (Background

conversation). Order. The member for member for grey. Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the

Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the Prime Minister to the statement

by near star, operators of by near star, operators of the

Port Pirie and lead and sing smellers which smellers which between them

employ 1340 workers that on our

quote, "if our competitors in Asia do not have to face Asia do not have to face a

carbon price in the same way we do, it will be the cause of do, it will be the cause of an exit of our Australian

operations." Will the Prime Minister guarantee that

Minister guarantee that near

star will not be driven from Australia by the Government's

carbon policy? The Prime Minister. Thank you very much,

Mr Speaker, and I thank the

member for his question member for his question now that the Liberal Party cheering

for Work Choices has died down.

On the question that the member

has asked me and I understand

that he would be concerned and concerned about the full

details of carbon price, those

full details will be available on Sunday. What I can Seve definitely say to the member is we understand and every day

that we have worked on carbon

pricing, we have understood we

needed to take steps to protect Australian jobs. We've brought

to that task our track record

of valuing work, of valuing work, our track

record of creating more than

700,000 jobs in this country

since the government was first

elected and we are looking forward to the creation of half

a million more. Which is why

in putting this package

together we have at every stage

had upper most in our mind the need to work need to work with Australian businesses and industries to

protect Australian jobs.

That's why the door has been opened through the business

round table and we have had consultations consultations through that round table. Of course, all of the details will be available

the details will be available

on Sunday and I anticipate at

that point Australian businesses will businesses will publish their

views and and the member can consider the

full package then. I can say to the member to the member we value

employment, our track record as

a government shows that we value employment, value employment, and we have

put this package together valuing employment and the

protection of Australian jobs.

The member for Riverina. The member

member for Hindmarsh. Thank you, Mr speaker. Mr Speaker, my question is to the Minister environment, water, population and communities. Will the Minister update the house Minister update the house on progress of reform in the

Murray Darling basin outline the importance of a consistent approach to consistent approach to water

reform? Are there any other

challenges or options to this

approach? The Minister for

sustainability, environment, water, population and communities. Thanks very much

Mr Speaker. I want to thank

the member for Hindmarsh which,

as all the South Australian

of the house, has a very keen interest in the outcomes for

Murray-Darling Basin reform.

The Windsor inquiry gave us an

opportunity for consensus and an

very much working together on

some of the ways that we can

minimise the impact on communities. In particular, I

quote from that inquiry with

the words: there is a general

con sin suss that minanyone

delakes cannot be overlooked and requires significant attention for the benefit of

the intans and its with the lakes, this has with the lakes, this has been the greatest opportunity for environmental works to potentially provide anything up

to 200 gigalitres through efficient use of the environmental water there. Therefore, many members, myself

included, were concerned when

the New South Wales Government last week announced that they were withdrawing from the

memorandum of understanding on

the lakes and that the project would not go ahead. I had

thought following the Windsor inquiry that there would be a joint approach across this house on being concerned about the NSW withdrawal from the

lakes and for that reason, I was pleased when Simon Birmingham, who some Birmingham, who some members will know as a Senator, made the comment that this was a

blow to basin reform process

and will make achieving the

basin plan even harder. No

doubt it does put more pressure

on issues like buy-back when

things like Menin dedon't go

ahead and we're waiting ahead and we're waiting for NSW

to come back with what they

want to put in its place. That

did not put forward a universal

position from the coalition. Indeed, the coalition have

continued to do post the

Windsor inquiry what they were doing beforehand and that's

sending one message out to the South Australian median at

further up the basin you go

message whether they come from

Senator Joyce or from others,

becomes quite different. The member for Farrer presumably

want once again, I don't know what it is about that Twitter, the that 7 second you get in radio doesn't occur between the

brain and thumb and in complete violation to what Birmingham was saying said this NSW pulling out of the NSW pulling out of the water deal. Excellent news.

say when you get a State

Government pulling out of a potential 200 gig litre potential 200 gig litre savings for Murray-Darling reform, you don't view that as excellent news. It is not good enough to

be sending one message to

irrigation communities and the opposite message in South Australia. The Windsor inquiry was meant to provide an opportunity where we ended up

with a unit news report. sended up with the Liberal, Nationals, and Independents

having the same point of view.

If only across the coalition could get a pontoon consistent

message on Murray-Darling

reform. They could continue

for different media units to

get away with local papers in

ir gracious communities running one

one line while downstream

they're putting forward a

different message. The Leader

of the Opposition has some experience in providing

opposite commitments on but you have to show your bat local paper and eventually it

will catch up with the Leader of the Opposition when the

Murray-Darling Basin plan

in front of this Parliament and he

he will either have to vote yes

to reform or back the positions

that those upstream have that those upstream have been

calling on him to do. Order! The member for Higgins. Thank

you Mr Speaker. My question is

to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to her statement

that and I quote: the use of cars is a very considerable

contributor to greenhouse

gases. We want to make a difference to that. But now

when selling her carbon tax, the Prime Minister says she

won't do anything to cut won't do anything to cut these

emissions because she knows

that people, "have got no

choice but to jump in their

cars to get places." Which

those statements is real and which is fake?

Prime Minister. Thank you very

much, Mr Speaker, and much, Mr Speaker, and in respect of the member's question, the Government is taking action taking action on the question of carbon pollution and motor

vehicles. We are doing that

in what we think is a most appropriate way. First appropriate way. First and foremost, in the recent Budget the

the member who asked the

question presumably looked at the recent Budget, in the recent Budget we've made recent Budget we've made a

change on the fringe benefit

arrangements we inherited had in them an artificial incentive

for people to drive their cars

further in order to advantage and all of us would

have heard the stories from the community and even friends and

others would have heard the

stories of people who have

spent every weekend in June driving their cars

extraordinary distances for no

purpose other than to trigger a

move into a different fringe benefits tax arrangement, a

dreadful, dreadful scheme in

terms of the environment and something that we something that we have addressed in the recent Budget.

Then of course during the

election campaign we committed to mandatory fuel to mandatory fuel emissions

standard s for 2015 and we're working to deliver those standards. Then of course we

have worked with the domestic

car industry so that we are able to support jobs as well as able to see greener able to see greener vehicles manufactured in faced a choice. They didn't want to make between buying

Australian and supporting Australian jobs... Disglmpbility the prime will

resume her place. Order.

member for Higgins has not got the call. The member for

Higgins on pint of order. Mr Speaker my point of order is

relevance. The question goes to

to which statement reveals the

real Julia and which statement

reveals the fake Julia. The

member for Higgins will resume

her place. Order. The member for Higgins. Order! (Background conversation). The member for Higgins member for Higgins should remember that there was remember that there was much more in her question than what

she has raised in the point she has raised in the point of

order and the Prime Minister

has been responding to the

question. The House has not been, I because there seems to be a lot of chatter. of chatter. The Member for

Canning can remove himself from the house under the house under 94A for one

hour. The Member for Canning

has been here long enough to know that there is no need for

a warning under the one hour

94A, but it would appear that

he is of the ilk this is a

reward or something because the

numbers of one hour are extremely high. I would have

hoped they modified behaviour.

They don't appear to. The

Prime Minister has the

call. Thank you very much, Mr

Speaker. I was asked about my statement about cutting

emissions from cars and

talking about the Government's

policies to do just that. policies to do just that. I've

just explained to the member

for Higgins who directed the

question to me. We've acted on

fringe benefit tax anomalies

that got people driving that got people driving their

cars further generating carbon pollution for no reason. We

are acting in accordance with our election commitment on

mandatory standards in 2015.

We have acted working with Australian We have acted working with the

Australian car industry so that we could support Australian

jobs, but also so people jobs, but also so people could

have the choice, the choice of have the choice, the choice of

supporting the Australian industry whilst purchasing for themselves a greener vehicle.

Many people didn't like the

fact that the only way you

could access a greener vehicle

was to buy something that was built overseas. They wanted to

support the jobs of Australian

car workers. Of course, we continue with to supporting Australian jobs through our more than $5

billion investment in our new

car plan and it is of course

that investment that the Leader

of the Opposition wants to Slash, slashing support for the

Australian car industry. But,

to the member for Higgins too I

would also make the following

suggestion: there of course

are various ways of doing an

emissions trading scheme and various coverage arrangements.

The member for Higgins The member for Higgins worked

for the former Treasurer, Costello and the former

treasure Peter Costello was

very determined to have a design of an design of an emissions trading

scheme that had petrol in. Indeed, he said if you encourage people to useless

petrol in their cars one of the consequences of that is the petrol will become less

affordable. This is all affordable. This is all part of responding to carbon emissions. emissions. Who is the real member for Higgins, the economic rational list who

worked for Peter Costello or

the member who follows the relentless Leader of the Opposition. I'll be very interested in the answer, Mr

answer, Mr Speaker. Prime Minister. Order! Order!

Order. Order. Order. Order. The Leader of the Opposition. Thanks Mr

Speaker. I move that so much Speaker. I move that so much

of the standing and sessional

orders be suspended as would

enable the Leader of the Opposition to move forth with

the following the following motion: that the Prime Minister immediately explain why she is owe

determine Toddy receive the Australian people about the

details of her carbon tax by refusing to release the details

for the full scrutiny of the

Parliament this week. In particular, why should anyone

trust the Prime Minister to

them the truth on

them the truth on the tax now

when six days before the

election she said there would

be no carbon tax under the

government I lead. Why should

anyone trust the fliem telling the truth now when one

day before the election she

said I rule out a carbon tax. Why should anyone trust the

prime total the truth she said yesterday when I'm in

a position to give people the

details, yet is refusing to

release the details to this Parliament and is hiding Parliament and is hiding from scrutiny. Why should anyone trust this Prime Minister when

she's trying to sneak through a carbon tax without a mandate

when the only real mandate of this is Parliament is a mandate not to introduce a carbon tax, why should anyone trust this Prime Minister giving people a vote on the

carbon tax by refusing to call an election and now refusing to

allow a plebiscite and finally,

Mr Speaker, that the calls on the Prime Minister to

recall Parliament next week to debate her carbon tax and give

the answers that the forgotten

families of Australia are

demanding today. Mr Speaker,... Disglmpbling the

Leader of the Opposition will

resume his seat. Order. The Leader of the Opposition.

Stop the clock. The leader of

the house on a point of

wish to take up the wish to take up the opposition

leader's time which is why the

clock stopped. I do raise the issue

issue of whether that motion is in fact a in fact a motion and is in

order. It seemed to me it was

a series of questions rather

than a motion being put before

this House. A number of the

motions that have been moved as suspensions by the Leader of the Opposition in fact when

we've had time to scrutinise them after the event, it them after the event, it is

quite clear they're not in fact proposed

house. Well Well, let him

rule. Order.

Order. I am happy to

the motion. I would just say that some... That I have had a growing concern about some of the

the matter that has been the matter that has been put

into the motion for which the suspensions suspensions have been called

for. It is perhaps something

that over the break I should

reflect on, but having not taken action on other motions,

I will allow this motion to

proceed, but I would hope that

at some future opportunity we

would have less preamble and

argument in the proposed

motions. The motion I will

allow the motion to be debated.

It is a motion for the

suspension of Standing Orders. The leader of the opposition. Mr Speaker, I thank

you for your ruling and I you for your ruling and I also thank the leader of the thank the leader of the house

for the curtesy that's been ex

extended. It is very important that Standing suspended because this matter

can't wait. It is urgent that

this Prime Minister stand up

and explain herself before this house because, Mr Speaker, this is a Prime Minister who is

constantly running away from

scrutiny. This is a Prime Minister who wants to indulge

in spin and hide from scrutiny

and what we saw in this Parliament today time after

time were ministers that are on strike. That's what we've seen, Mr Speaker, from this

government today in Question Time, we've seen ministers that

have been on strike. They have

constantly demanded that

questions be asked. They have constantly demanded that Question Time run its full

tenure and then when questions are duly asked they go on strike

strike and refuse to answer

them. Mr Speaker, this is a shameful and embarrassing performance from a government

which just gets worse every single day. worse every single day, Mr

Speaker. The Prime Minister

says that next week she'll be

going around our country

talking to families talking to families and talking to workers. Fair enough, but what about explaining herself to this Parliament, Mr Speaker?

What about explaining herself

to this Parliament? This is a speak Prime Minister who wasn't honest with the Australian people before the

last election. 15 times, no

less, I said during the election campaign as night follows day if this government is re-elected government is re-elected there

will be a carbon tax. We will be a carbon tax. We all

know what the Prime Minister

said. She said six days before

the election there will be carbon tax under the Government

I lead. Then she said the day

before the election, "I rule

out a carbon tax." This is why

Standing Orders need to be suspended so suspended so this Prime

Minister can explain herself. She should explain why she's running away from the people at explain why she is trying to have her carbon tax sneaked through this Parliament which if it has any mandate at all,

Mr Deputy Speaker, if this Parliament has any Parliament has any mandate at

all, the mandate is not to

introduce this carbon tax, not

to introduce this carbon tax

and that's why Standing Order

should be dus suspended and

that's why this Prime Minister

should explain herself. This is a Prime

afraid. She is very, very

afraid. She's afraid of

voters, she a afraid of

workers, and now she a afraid of this Parliament. She won't

answer questions this week. We saw that in the Parliament today. She won't answer

questions next week because she

won't recall the Parliament and

she won't even face the

Parliament now. No recent previous Prime Minister would have shown the face of the Parliament. This is the fourth or fifth time that this Prime Minister in a cowardly fashion in a cowardly fashion has scurried out scurried out this Parliament to

have a Tim Tam the whip's office instead of facing this parliament as she should parliament as she should to explain herself. Mr Standing Orders must be

suspended because the arguments

that this government relies on to justify its carbon to justify its carbon tax have

both lies. This Prime Minister

will pay. Mr Speaker, it was

just the 1000 big polluters why on earth is there a

compensation package? Why on

earth is there earth is there a battler's buffer if it is just the evil

1000 who are going to have to

pay this tax? It is complete nonsense. The voters aren't mugs and the Prime Minister

should explain herself which is why Standing Orders should be

suspended. The other lie that this Prime Minister and the government... Order! Order!

Order! I withdraw lie. The

Leader of the Opposition must

observe the standing orders

which is trying to suspend. The this Prime Minister relies

on justfy a carbon the rest of the world

the world is responding. It is

the world is responding. It is massively increasing its carbon emissions

emissions by 350% in the case of India and they are laughing

at us, inflicting on at us, inflicting on ourselves an unnecessary new tax that

will be nothing but an act of

economic self-harm. Standing Orders

Orders must be suspended

because this is the biggest structural change in our economic history and it should

not be foisted on our people,

rushed through this Parliament

without this Prime Minister

giving a much better account of

herself than has so far herself than has so far been

managed. She says it is very

important that we have a price

signal on so-called signal on so-called carbon pollution. The whole

a price signal is that if the

price isn't high, the signal

doesn't work. That's what she's got to explain, Mr Speaker, just how high Speaker, just how high this

price signal is going to be.

Mr Deputy Speaker, you can't

trust this Prime Minister to

tell the truth, you can't trust this Prime Minister to get the

details of the biggest tax

change in our history right, if

you can't trust this Government to install pink batts for free

without causing fires in

hundreds of roofs, you can't trust them to introduce the

biggest tax change in our history. If you this Government to build school

halls without rip off after rip

off, you can't trust this

government to get the biggest

and most complicated change in our history right. Mr Speaker,

look at what the Government has

done to the live cattle trade.

Haven't they shown a great deal of competence. Haven't they

shown a great deal of skill in

execution. Haven't they shown

the kind of attention to detail

that you would rather

of a government that is now

embarked on the biggest and the

most complex change in our history. Mr Speaker, that's

why we need this Prime Minister in

in this Parliament now. That's

why we need the Parliament

recalled. That's why we need

the Parliament to scrutinise

the carbon tax changes because

we can't trust this to get anything right, let

alone the biggest and the alone the biggest and the most complex change in our history.

This is the most incompetent

government in our history.

They cannot be trusted to They cannot be trusted to get

right the most complex change

in our history. Mr Speaker, members opposite know that this

Prime Minister and this Government are going to get it wrong. Let's face it, this is the Prime Minister who talks the Prime Minister who talks to

the Greens much more than she

talks to her own backbench. This is the Prime talks to the Independents much

more than she talks to more than she talks to the

union officials who know what's

going on to the workers' jobs

in our country. If she spent a bit more time talking to Paul house on the carbon tax and a

bit more time talking to Tony

shell done on the carbon tax

and by less time talking to Bob

Brown she wouldn't be getting

it so very, very, very wrong.

This coalition will be the

voice of the voiceless. That's

what we will be in this Parliament. Mr Parliament. Mr Speaker, as the former Prime Minister so

memberbly said, Paul Keating e

he said if you don't understand

it, don't vote for it. If you

do understand, you'll do understand, you'll never

vote for it. We need to

scruitineers this carbon tax.

We need more democracy less hypocrisy, hypocrisy, we need more scrutiny less spin that's scrutiny less spin that's why the suspension should be

supported. The Honourable

leader's time has expired. Is

the motion seconded? I call

the Honourable Member for North Sydney. Mr something was happening yesterday when the Prime

Minister... Order! Is The Honourable seconding

motion. I have seconding the

motion. You haven't but now now you have. I signed a piece

of paper and seconded it. The Member for North Sydney. We

knew something was knew something was happening yesterday when the Prime

Minister said that the details of the carbon tax would be released in the fullness released in the fullness of time and at the same time Senator Christine Milne was Senator Christine Milne was on SkyNews said SkyNews said it would be released at the end of the week. At the same time, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister started Question Time complaining started Question Time today

complaining that we lost the opportunity to ask 136 questions by moving suspensions. Mr suspensions. Mr Speaker, I say

to you and to the Australian

people it is not the questions

that are being asked, it is the answers that are not answers that are not being given. This is a accountability. This is what

this Parliament is for. Now we

have a general strike in the

government. There are a whole

lot of union officials on that

side, but never thought they would call

on strike. They've done it

today this. 'S refused to

answer questions on the details

they decided on, partially

announced but they want to

announce outside of announce outside of the parliamentary cycle. parliamentary cycle. They have doing that to avoid the scrutiny of the Australian people in the Parliament. They

are doing it because they are

cowards. They are running away

from the scrutiny of from the scrutiny of Parliament

and I cannot recall any Prime

Minister in living memory who

has run away from the Parliament, sur read out of building, scurried out of

chamber, when it came to

scrutiny of their own policies.

Would the key having done it no

no. Would Hawke have done it?

No. Would Whitlam have done

it. Would chif lee Menzies or

Holt or curtain or Frazer or

Howard have done it? No.

Because they are men of

courage. They are people with

principles. We have a weak

insipid Prime Minister who is

scared of scrutiny. She's more

interested in getting free air time on commercial TV on Sunday

night than she is on actually answering questions in this

place. Hang on, all is good,

Wayne Swan's right behind

We can all rest easy.

Australia is in safe hands if

the Prime Minister drops the

ball at first slip we have a

great second slipper right up there with Alan Border, Wayne

Swan, the Treasurer. We ask

the Treasurer about whether

boats would have a fuel tax. He couldn't answer the question. We asked about trucks. Couldn't question. We asked about oil

refineries today. Couldn't

answer the question. We even gave the leader of the gave the leader of the house a question he couldn't question he couldn't answer it.

He said wait five days. What a

coward we have at thedes coward we have at thedes pooich patch box too. What a wimp.

You know what I bet? I bet he doesn't know. I reckon the member for New England can answer. The member for Lion

can answer. They are can answer. They are the architects of the carbon together with the Greens together with the Greens and the Prime Minister. Mr

Speaker, the problem this Prime

Minister has is this - the

questions we are asking in this place are the questions her own backbenchers are being asked by their constituents. What the

Prime Minister knows is that if

she announced all the details

of the carbon tax today and she

could not answer the questions

in this place over the next few

days, the knives would be out.

All the backbench members, the

member for Reed, the men for

Greenway, the Member for Banks

over there, they're being asked these simple questions, whether

the carbon tax applies to trucks, whether it applies to

landscapers, whether it a flies

and how it applies to

electricity. They are being

asked the same questions by their constituents that we their constituents that we are

being asked and we are asking

those questions in this those questions in this place and the Prime Minister and more

alarmingly the Treasurer and the Minister For Climate Change

can't answer those basic questions. Instead, they rhetoric. Instead they talk

about the battler's buffer.

Let me tell you the battler's buffer is the battler's bluff.

It is about the fact that the

Labor Party wants to increase the cost of living for every day Australians but it does day Australians but it does not

want to be accountable for its

words and actions. This

Parliament is the place where the questions must be asked.

This is the place where the

questions must be answered. If

we are going to have to suffer

an inn glorious end to this prime-ministership and prime-ministership and this

Government, so be it. We will

ask the questions for the Australian people demand some real answers. Where the Prime

Minister? Give the call to

honourable members on my left

will remain silent. I issue a

general warning to honourable

members on my left and I give the

the call to the leader of the call to the leader of the

house. The question is that

the motion be agreed give the the house. Thank you, Mr Deputy

Speaker. I'm pleased to one again have the opportunity again have the opportunity to speak to this procedural

resolution of suspension of

Standing Orders moved with monotonous predictability by

the lo.s we have heard a lot the lo.s we have heard a lot of rhetoric from the Leader of the Opposition about the importance of Parliament, about the

opportunity to ask questions

and hear answers. What we know

is that yet again today, yet

again today, Question Time again today, Question Time was cut short, another three questions missed out on as a result of this suspension

motion. We know that in total

more than 7 full question

more than 7 full question times have been lost this year as a

result of the suspension of

Standing Orders by those opposite. We know that opposite. We know that they

are the first opposition in

Federation which has chosen to

not even try to hold the

Government to account during

Question Time. We Question Time. We know from the Leader of the Opposition,

who in his speech exposed again, yet again, his denial of

the science of climate change,

when he referred to in his

speech today so-called carbon

pollution, so-called carbon pollution, yet again, he could

help himself, but to once again

question the science. We know

that he questions the science and has contempt for Australian organisations such

as the CSIRO. We know that he has contempt for Australia's

economists even though every

respectable economist know s

that you need to put a price on

carbon. Indeed, last night carbon. Indeed, last night on the 7.30 Report the Leader of

the Opposition was asked: can

you name a single credible

economist who believes that

your plan will work? your plan will work? And he

couldn't. He couldn't. He

named an organisation, an

organisation, Lord Christopher

Monckton doesn't count. Lord

Christopher Monckton, a

disdiscreted peer who has no credibility back home, who has been dismissed by Margaret

Thatcher who was one of Thatcher who was one of the

world's first leaders to take action on climate change,

discredited Lord Christopher

Monckton comes here and gets together with his namesake

across there, with his namesake in half. He went on when he couldn't do when he couldn't do that Chris

Uhlmann asked, a single economy

economist, a name and he said,

oh, look, I'm not going to get in the business our economist

is better is better than your economist.

Just one will do. Any one will

do. A single economist who

supports their position. We know, of course, that

economists who support putting

a price on carbon include Paul

Brennan, head of economics from Citigroup global markets, Chris Caton chief chief economist.

Saul Eslake, Joshua Richard Gibbs, Stephen

Grenville, John Hewson, Jeff weir, Glenn Withers, every respectable economist in

country knows the way to get action is to put a price action is to put a price on

carbon. It is one thing that their

their climate sceptics, but he's another thing they're

market sceptics. They're

sceptical about the role of the market. One would have market. One would have thought

that the Leader of the

Opposition might have been bit nervous about going on the

7.30 Report. Remember during the election campaign wee went on

on there and said to the whole

world that you Copt believe a thing he said unless it was thing he said unless it was in

writing and since then has walked away even from that

commitment. Last night he had

another shocker. He another shocker. He won't

be... I predict this will be his annual appearance on the

7.30 Report because he hasn't

been on there all year up to now. He was in the end, do you agree that the Budget's funded by taxes so

there will be a carbon tax? Under

Under his scheme. Tony Abbott

replied: look, I accept that

everything has a cost, everything has a cost. everything has a cost. He acknowledged indeed that the

difference between the

Government's position and the

Opposition's is that we want to

put a price on carbon for put a price on carbon for the top 1000 polluters and give assistance with that money to ordinary ordinary Australian households

to families, to industries and to support action on to support action on climate

change, those opposite want to

tax ordinary working families through the tax system in

offered order to put subsidies

to the big polluters. That's what this debate is what this debate is about,

pouring and pure and simple.

There's more. If you There's more. If you look at

the so-called direct the so-called direct action

plan, the one that's going to have trees planned greater have trees planned greater than

the size of Germany, it also

has in it a bit of detail. In the operation of funds is

this on page 14 - you haven't

heard them talk about this, Mr

Deputy Speaker - they want to

keep this a secret. It says this, because I'm one of the this, because I'm one of the

few people because I have an interest in this policy to have

read their document. If only

for amusement. It says this:

businesses that undertake activity with an emissions

level above usual levels will incur a

financial penalty. That sounds like a tax to me. That sounds

like a tax to me. It goes on: the value of penalties will be

on a sliding scale at levels commensurate with the size ofs

that I of their business and

the extent to which they exceed their business as usual

That's there in their policy.

You haven't heard about that, have you, up to now? We haven't heard them

talk about that. We know talk about that. We know that this man opposite is the

living Liberal leader who is

opposed to a price on carbon.

The only living Liberal leader. We know, of course, that he We know, of course, that he is

all opposition and no leader.

All division and no vision.

The stuntman of Australian politics who politics who yesterday, two

weeks after he said he would be

in here to move his in here to move his private member's bill that he won't be

bound by, came in bound by, came in here

yesterday and had his yesterday and had his five

minutes. He had his five minutes that will then be

deferred off for a vote some

time in August. This great

plebiscite he's so committed to

that he get through the first interview without saying that he

he wouldn't even be bound by it. That bound by it. This

inconsistent, rank opportunist

of an Opposition Leader simply

should be rejected for should be rejected for his

failure to come up with

substance and it is consistent.

We've heard it all before.

Indeed, this is... Does this sound familiar? People will go towards Christmas without

having a job. Kids will be not

be enjoying the Christmas be enjoying the Christmas they

have been used to. But all of this is

we're an ideological kick here.

Who said that? The member for

Mackellar. When did she say

it? In 1992. 1992. What was

she talking about? Compulsory

superannuation. Compulsory superannuation was going to

wreck the economy. Opening Australia, opening up Australia to globalisation was going to

wreck the economy. Every major reform put forward because it is only Labor that

has the courage to tackle the

big issues has been possess been opposed by been opposed by those opposite. We know the Leader of the Opposition, the walking

vuvuzala of Australian

is committed to one thing, he's got one tune, and it's no, no,

no, no, no. He does it over and over again no matter and over again no matter what the the issue, no opportunity, no

opportunity to put forward a

serious alternative vision and

it is no wonder that so many

his own team are embarrassed his own team are embarrassed by

the position that they are now putting forward where they

reject the science of climate

change and they reject the need for action. The Honourable

Member's time has expired.

Order! The question is that

the motion for the suspension orders moved by the Leader of

the Opposition be agreed to.

All those of that opinion say

aye. The contrary no. I the nos have it. Division

required. Ring the required. Ring the bells for four minutes.

Than it's where we'll Than it's where we'll leave Parliament. We'll bring you the results of division as soon

as they come to hand. We saw very starkly in the speeches by the Leader of the the Shadow Treasurer and by the

manager of Government business in the house, Anthony Albanese,

the sorts of pictures being

painted of both leaders. Tony

Abbott has accused Minister of trying to sneak past scrutiny of being afraid, of

of being gutless. Joe Hockey said she was lacking into the

courage of her predecessors.

The opposition leader says The opposition leader says the Prime Minister is running away

from scrutiny. He wants

Parliament recall next week. If not Parliament, recalled next

next week andal Albanese has been painting the

opposition leader as opposition leader as negative, inconsistent, Tunis, a

stuntman. Nick grim in Sydney,

very stark pictures of the

opposition and the government

what they think of each other

is very clear. The carbon tax

details, as Anthony Albanese

told the Parliament are just