REARRANGEMENT
September 21, 2011
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (17:32): I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent:
(1) the time and order of business for Tuesday, 11 October 2011 being as follows:
(a) the House shall meet at 9 a.m.;
(b) Government business shall have priority from 9 a.m. until 2 p.m.; and
(c) during the period from 9 a.m. until 2 p.m. any division on a question called for in the House, other than on a motion moved by a Minister during this period, shall stand deferred until the conclusion of the discussion of a matter of public importance; and
(2) any variation to this arrangement to be made only by a motion moved by a Minister.
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland) (18:05): I join with the Leader of the House and the member for Higgins in making a couple of points on this motion before the House that the sitting hours be extended on 11 October, because I believe this legislation does need to be thoroughly examined. In this place, as members of the House of Representatives, we are in a very privileged position. I am sure all members agree with me. We are particularly privileged at the moment because at least we get to have a vote.
The people of Australia have been denied that democratic opportunity to have a vote in relation to the carbon tax, because this Prime Minister, in a fundamental breach of trust, told the Australian people just days before the last election, ‘There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.’ We can have the debate here about whether the Prime Minister is actually leading any government at all or whether it is Bob Brown, the Leader of the Greens.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Gippsland cannot have that debate because he is actually referring to the motion before the chair.
Mr CHESTER: My concern is that the government is not giving the Australian people the chance to have their say in the way that we are having our say through this motion to extend sitting hours. I would encourage members opposite, particularly regional members, whose electorates are at the absolute pointy end of the carbon tax debate to support this. It is their workers in the manufacturing sector and the dairy industry, and the average farm faces a $5,000 increase in its power bill. It is their workers in small business who are at the absolute pointy end of this carbon tax as it cascades through the entire economy.
I invite members opposite, particularly those regional members of parliament, to use this opportunity of extended sitting hours to stand up on behalf of the workers in their electorate. This is an opportunity for those opposite to demonstrate whether they still want to stand up for the workers of Australia or whether they are just going to be the lap-dogs of the Australian Greens. They can use these extended sitting hours to debate the merits of this tax on behalf of the people they were sent here to represent. Don’t take orders from the Greens, don’t take orders from a Prime Minister who is desperately trying to cobble together her leadership for the future: stand up on behalf of your constituents who are going to be at the pointy end of this carbon tax if it is introduced.
Make no mistake: the greatest threat to jobs in our traditional industries in regional Australia is the policies of the Australian Greens and this carbon tax. When you combine those two things you have an absolute recipe for disaster in our traditional industries right throughout regional Australia. In days gone by, there were members opposite in the Australian Labor Party who would use an opportunity like these extended sitting hours to actually stand up for the workers. I believe that the Labor Party of old was better than this. It was always better than this. This is the opportunity that is being presented to the Labor Party by the House with these additional sitting hours to discuss and debate the carbon tax. We can cut your ties with the Greens and you can start to become the party that actually believes in something. I remember that in the lead-up to the last election the Australian Labor Party believed in working families. We do not seem to hear much discussion about working families anymore. I do encourage those opposite to use these extended sitting hours to do something courageous and, as the Prime Minister invited you to, be on the right side of history and oppose this tax.
I also want to take up the contributions by the member for Higgins and the member for Sturt in relation to whether or not this motion should even be before the House and whether there should even be a debate about a carbon tax in this place at this time. This government does not have a mandate for this tax. In fact, as the member for Sturt pointed out, this government has a mandate for exactly the opposite. The overwhelming majority of members in this place—at least 148 and probably 149 members—campaigned in the last election against a carbon tax. Each of us achieved a mandate to oppose a carbon tax in the lead-up to that election. The only member who actually openly campaigned in support of a carbon tax, to the best of my knowledge, is the member for Melbourne. We all have a mandate; we all have a mandate to oppose this carbon tax. So I take the point from the member for Sturt and the member for Higgins in that regard. We really should not even be debating this motion, because this legislation would not even be before the House, if the government were true to its word and true to the mandate it received, however dubious it may be, from the Australian people.
For my final point I would like to take up a comment the Leader of the House made in his contribution to this debate. He said, ‘Those opposite just say no’—
Dr Emerson: That’s true.
Mr CHESTER: And so do the vast majority of Australians. The vast majority of Australians are saying no to your carbon tax, so the Leader of the House is right. You do not have to believe me. The Minister for Trade is interjecting; you do not have to believe me. I have here a sample. These are postcards that I sent out to my electorate to invite people to send Julia Gillard a message. I said, ‘Here’s your chance to tell Julia Gillard what you think about her carbon tax.’ It is easy for us as members, because we can stand up here and make a speech and say what we want to say. The Australian people have been denied that right.
Dr Emerson: Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is a procedural motion. It is pretty obvious that the member is now going to go into some substance in representing his electorate, which he is entitled to do, but maybe he should avail himself of the increase in the number of hours that has been provided through this motion, rather than rehearsing a speech—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke): The minister will resume his seat. The member for Gippsland needs to be relevant to the motion before the chair, and he is straying.
Mr CHESTER: In conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am not surprised that the Minister for Trade would be sensitive about issues such as these, because he would have a pile—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Gippsland should not impugn motives. There is a procedural motion.
Mr CHESTER: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. In conclusion, I simply make this point: those of us on this side of the House will support this extension of the sitting hours because it is an opportunity for members opposite to show some courage, to stand up for their electorates, to stand up for the workers in their electorates and actually start listening to the Australian people—people like the ones who have sent me 900 postcards opposing the carbon tax. Incidentally, there are 30 in favour of the carbon tax; I must be fair. This is an opportunity for those opposite to do what I have done and to canvass the views of their electorates and give them the opportunity to have their say, as I have done. It is an overwhelming mandate that I have received from the people of my community, where they have asked me to say no for a very good reason: their jobs are at stake. I encourage those opposite to use these extended sitting hours to show a bit of fortitude, to stand up for the workers they claim to represent, and to consider the impact that this tax will have on the working families who have been, to be blunt, treated appallingly by a government which has shown them no respect. In fact, the Leader of the House had the absolute temerity to describe people who complained about the carbon tax as being of no consequence. So I urge those opposite to redeem themselves with these extended sitting hours and actually start standing up for the people of Australia who expect them to give them a voice in this place.
(Time expired)