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 Breakfast -

View in ParlView

(generated from captions) with the investigation. To

Government Canberra now where the

Government will introduce its

carbon tax bill into Parliament

today. The Opposition is

criticising the time allowed

for debating the various bills

but the Climate Change Minister

Greg Combet says everyone will

have the chance to have their

say. Everyone will have an

opportunity to speak on the

bills and it's not as if there

hasn't been an ex-tensive

debated and a lot of policy

work in the lead-up to this.

You just have to think back in

history a) little bit. I think

the issue of climate change was

first debated in Parliament

about 17 years ago. And since

that time there's been no less

than 35 inquiries into climate

change and how we tackle it and

really it is time that we get

on with it now. Greg Combet

there. For more, the Opposition climate action spokesman Greg

hunt joins us now. Good morning: The Minister has got

point. This has to be the most

exhaustively debated issue in

Federal politics this year.

What is wrong with the

legislative time table the

Government has set down? The

Government is allowing

approximately one minute per member per bill for debate. This is an extraordinary turn in

democratic process. Essentially

what is occurring here is the

Prime Minister, as we all know,

broke her election promise. She

legislation which follows from wants to submit that

that broken promise to as

little scrutiny as possible and

the idea of major rises in

electricity, gas and groceries

being subject to one minute per

member per bill is an extraordinary turn of evens. But there are bills and

bills. There are 18 bills to

set up the carbon tax but some

billing ares are more important

than others. We both know. That but the House of Representatives vote has been scheduled for October 12. That

is a month away. The Senate

vote is a few weeks after that.

That is surely is plenty of

time for every member for every

senator to have their say. In

real time that is less than two

hours per bill, 150 members of

Parliament. Let's assume that

one in five doesn't speak. That

is one minute per member, per

bill. What does that mean? It

means that the ability to

explore the fact that the

Government hasn't produced the

correct modelling with the

carbon price will get very

little chance to be debated.

How can it be that the Prime

Minister promised she would get

the correct kbron carbon price

model? The legislation comes

into Parliament today, the

correct carbon price has not

been modelled. And even now the

basic figures are set down on

the wrong carbon price. The

carbon tax compensation

package, it hasn't been

modelled on $23 a tonne? The

Government's modelling, page 18

of the summary modelling, makes

it absolutely clear that it is

a $20 macro economic

moilding. But we're talking

about the compensation which is

what voters are interested in.

That has been modelled on $23 a tonne. The basic carbon price

is the wrong carbon price.

There's no debate, no doubt, no

denial, no question that the

Government's own modelling is

based on $20. And that is an extraordinary situation where

the Prime Minister can't even

get the price of her carbon tax

correct. Now, u ho is it

looking for the Coalition? I

would say it is not look ing that well because the Government does seem to have

the numbers to get the various

bills through loes the Loyer

house and the - lower house and

the upper house. Is this now a

fait accompli? There is no bill

or legislation in this

Parliament which is is a done deal until the vote is

complete. We know there is

significant division not just

within the Caucus but within

the Cabinet of the ALP. There

is every prospect of rethinking

and even if that doesn't come

to pass our position is very

clear. We will repeal and

replace the legislation at the

next election, if it passes.

The next election will be a

real referendum on this

legislation and we say to the

members of the ALP it is not

too late to stand by your

election commitment and to

stand by the Prime Minister's

pledge that there won't be a

carbon tax under the Government

that she leads. While we're

talking legislation, do you

believe the the principle of

executive executive Government

authority? It's - the executive

is always subject to the Parliament and the Parliament

is subject to the constitution.

So they're not

un-Trammelled. There are - But

it's a fundamental Liberal

Party platform policy, isn't

it? Observing the fundamental

principle of executive government? Actually, the example Liberal Party principle

is the executive is subject to

the Parliament and the

Parliament is subject to the constitution. For a Government

- obviously we're talking about

the asylum seeker legislation,

the Malaysia bill response, the

Government has put up, the

Government, show, has numbers,

it hopes to get this

legislation through the

Parliament. Why won't the

Coalition support what the

Government has put up to get

around the High Court ruling yesterday? The Government is

always asking us to give them

blank cheques. They asked for

that on the pink batts program,

on the green loans program.

They said it would all be fine.

It wasn't fine: When you come

to the practice of dumping

people offshore with inadequate

human rights pro protection, we

don't accept that. We think

there is a humane and effective

way of dealing with this issue.

We don't want people to drown

en route to Australia and that

is the reality. That is the

truth. That is what occur s at

present. When people come we

have seen tragedies at sea. We

have lost human lives and we

want that to stop but you can

do that most effectively by

looking at what has occurred

effectively in Nauru, not by

simply dumping people where

rights protections and we make there are inadequate human

no apologyies for that

combination of being effective

but also humane. If the

Opposition, though, doesn't

agree to support this legislation, won't you

effectively be cutting your

nose off to spite your face

because if this legislation

goes down so too does the

concept of offshore

processing? We support offshore

procession and we support good

solution, not bad solution. What this Government does is it

tries to be incredibly clever

and tricky by tacking one good

idea to a bad idea. And we will

just simply stand for the good

ideas and the good suggestions.

We want Australian control. We

want Australian standards. We

want Australian protections. In

place. And that is why we have

designed systems which were

effective and fair and humane

in the past and that's what we

will stand for in the

future. Even though the

government official s briefing

your leader last week were

saying that their you is not

going to work, it is not

effective? This Government sets

up officials to do the dirty

work and they get the answers

to the questions they seek. So

they had answers that the home

insulation program would be

fine. It wasn't. They had

answers that the green loans

program would be fine, it wasn't. They define their own

questions and misuse officials.

I don't blame the officials. I

say that this is a Government

which has very little respect

for the proper separation of

powers and the proper role of

the bureaucracy. They put the

bureaucracy in an impossible

position. They need to stand up

and take responsibility, not

hide behind officials who have

very little choice other than

to back the Government of the

day. Greg Hunt in Canberra,

thank you very much for your

time this morning Thank