Harry needs a holiday
Harry Jenkins, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, has the tough job of keeping the Parliament under control.
HARRY JENKINS, SPEAKER: Questions without notice. Are there any questions?
TONY ABBOTT, OPPOSITION LEADER: Mr Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister.
TONY ABBOTT (over interruptions from the House): Why won't the Prime Minister...
HARRY JENKINS: Order, order...
TONY ABBOTT: ... talk to the workers?
HARRY JENKINS: Order! Order!
I declare a general warning and I am very serious about it.
ANTHONY ALBANESE, LEADER OF THE HOUSE: It was just a rant from the Leader of the Opposition.
HARRY JENKINS (over Wayne Swan continuing to speak): The Treasurer will resume his seat. Treasurer, Treasurer!
Sorry to interrupt the chatter.
HARRY JENKINS (over Wayne Swan continuing to speak): Order, order!
HARRY JENKINS: Members may not have heard of the HGI - the Harry Grumpiness Index - but it's very high.
JULIA GILLARD, PRIME MINISTER: The last thing the Leader of the Opposition ever uses this Parliament for is proper scrutiny.
HARRY JENKINS: The member for Sturt will remove himself from the chamber for one hour.
The member for Indi will remove herself from the chamber.
The member for Cook will leave the chamber.
The member for Mackellar will leave the chamber. There is a general warning.
Order! If there are (sighs). The Prime (sighs). I just want to get this straight.
TONY ABBOTT: And now Mr Speaker she turns her back.
HARRY JENKINS: Order!
TONY ABBOTT: How childish. How immature. How cowardly.
JULIE BISHOP, DEPUTY OPPOSITION LEADER: She's avoiding scrutiny. She's trashing Parliamentary democracy.
HARRY JENKINS: There was an incident during the Deputy Leader's speech, that - order - that if I knew who the culprit was...
KELLY O'DWYER, LIBERAL MP: I think it is very important that you look to the tapes to find out who made that catcall.
CHRISTOPHER PYNE, LIBERAL FRONTBENCHER: We all know who it was. The press gallery know who it was.
HARRY JENKINS: The member for Higgins will resume her seat!
CHRISTOPHER PYNE: I would invite him to apologise to the House.
JOEL FITZGIBBON, CHIEF GOVT WHIP: I believe there were a number of interventions.
HARRY JENKINS: If you want me to use the word disgust, I'll use the word disgust.
JOEL FITZGIBBON: And I do a catch-all apology for any that I may have made.
HARRY JENKINS: Order!
JULIA GILLARD: This was clearly the wrong thing to do. I will be requiring him to apologise personally to the Deputy Leader of Opposition.
TONY ABBOTT: I rise simply to thank the Prime Minister for what was an extremely gracious statement.
HARRY JENKINS: I thank both leaders. I genuinely thank both leaders.
It would hardly surprise anybody who watched Question Time that day - as the Advocate did, of course - that Harry Jenkins might have resigned his closely watched position as Speaker of his own volition.
Clearly, his tolerance, for years one of the most impressive performances in the Chamber, was wearing thin. The gracious words of Ms Gillard and Mr Abbott were welcome on the day but, when the detente frayed again months later...who would blame the Speaker for deciding that he just didn't need it any more?
The Advocate appends the Hansard of the House from the Thursday before INSIDERS aired its video version:
8044 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, 7 July 2011 CHAMBER
CARBON PRICING
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (14:21): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister inform the House how the government will deliver a price on carbon? How will the government assist households and industry in building a clean energy future and a strong low-emissions economy?
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! Members may not have heard of the HGI, the Harry grumpiness index, but it is very high and I expect a bit better from the chamber.
Mr Pyne: Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. It is about the order of the question. Given that the Prime Minister has been unable to answer any questions from the opposition this week about the carbon tax—and it is not until Sunday that—
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. I indicate that, because of the hubbub, I did not hear the question and I invite the member for Kingston to repeat her question.
Ms RISHWORTH: My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister inform the House how the government will deliver a price on carbon? How will the government assist households and industry in building a clean energy future and a strong low-emissions economy?
Mr Pyne: Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Having heard the question, I think it clearly asks for an announcement of government policy. I would suggest that you might ask the member for Kingston to reword it or rule it out of order.
The SPEAKER: Order! Similar to a response I gave to the Leader of the House yesterday when he alleged that somebody was inviting the Prime Minister to announce policy, I give the same ruling: the question is in order.
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:23): I am asked how we will deliver a price on carbon; let me answer that question. We will deliver a price on carbon in the most efficient way. We will deliver a price on carbon, respecting the science that is leading the way and telling us that our climate is changing, that that change is caused by carbon pollution and human activity and that we need to act to cut carbon pollution.
The plan I will announce on Sunday will be a plan to cut 160 million tonnes of carbon pollution by 2020. That is a very large change in the way that the nation generates carbon pollution. It is the equivalent to taking millions and millions of cars off the road, and that is the aim of pricing carbon: to cut carbon pollution. The plan that we will announce on Sunday will be a plan that protects Australian jobs and gives us access to the clean energy jobs of the future.
I am pleased to report to the House that, this month, we have seen in our nation 60,000 new jobs created. That is fantastic; we want people to have the benefits and dignity of work. As we go about pricing carbon, we will protect Australian jobs and get access to the clean energy jobs of the future. Around 1.6 million extra jobs will be created by 2020. We will price carbon in an efficient way, which is through an emissions trading scheme. We will reach that through a limited period of a fixed price and then reach an emissions trading scheme. This is the system of pricing carbon that was supported by former Prime Minister Howard. It is the system for pricing carbon that was supported by the member for Wentworth. It is the system for pricing carbon that economists recommend as the most efficient way of pricing carbon.
Because we are a Labor government we will ensure, as we price carbon, that we assist Australian families, and particularly that we assist those families most in need. Fifty per cent of all of the revenue raised will go to Australian households; nine out of 10 households will see tax cuts and increases in payments. We are talking about pensioners, family payments and tax cuts for working Australians. Three million Australian house-holds will see a 20 per cent buffer. That means that the net amount of new money provided to them will be 20 per cent more than the expected impact of the carbon price on the goods they buy. They can come out better off as a result of our pricing carbon. Indeed, across the nine out of 10 households that we will assist, we will be providing information to people about how to cut their energy use. If people take some simple steps to cut their energy use, they too can pocket the tax cuts, or pension increases or family payment increases provided to them.
This is the right plan for the nation's future. It is a plan to create a clean energy future, tackle carbon pollution, get big polluters to pay, protect Australian jobs and assist Australian households. It is the right way to price carbon, driven by our Labor values, and all of the details will be available on Sunday.
Carbon Pricing
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff) (14:28): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to her repeated statement that the carbon tax will affect 'the top 1,000 emitters'. I refer her to reports now that, just three days out from the announcement, the Prime Minister has cut that to 500. Have 500 companies suddenly stopped emitting greenhouse gases, Prime Minister, or are the Australian people being told only half the bad news?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:28): I thank the member for his question. Let me explain to the member that coverage decisions have been made which do reduce the number of big businesses who will be paying the price for their carbon pollution. The biggest 500 polluters will be, under the scheme, required to pay a price for the carbon pollution they generate. Our plan is to make polluters pay. The Leader of the Opposition's plan is to make Australian families pay. So, in making those decisions about coverage, the number of big polluters who will be paying has been reduced. I would have to say that I detect a theme across the opposition's questions today. I detect an emerging theme. There are some days when you come in here and you have absolutely no idea what they are on about, but today I can tell what they are on about. They are on about their sense of disappoint-ment because they have spent months and months and months trying to raise fear about carbon pricing. Now I think we can see written on their faces, as more and more details become clear about the scheme, that they can feel it. They can feel that their scare campaign is not going to be able to be sustained.
Mr Ciobo: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order that goes to relevance. I ask why 500 companies have suddenly stopped emitting greenhouse gases.
Ms GILLARD: In answering the member's question and explaining the coverage changes that have been made in the
Thursday, 7 July 2011 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 8045 CHAMBER
scheme as compared with the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, what I increasingly sense is a sense of disappointment from the opposition. They wanted to have their petrol price scare campaign. The Leader of the Opposition was already out claiming 6.5c a litre, and he was dead wrong. They wanted to have a campaign about how wide the scheme was covering and now they can see that scare campaign shrivelling before their eyes, because as usual they have been dead wrong. They wanted to have a cost of living scare campaign. They wanted to be out there scaring Australian families about the impacts of carbon pricing, and now of course it is clear nine out of 10 households will get tax cuts or payment increases, which should actually lead the opposition to say to itself: how irresponsible they have been over the last year trying to scare Australians, making things up, as we get on with pricing carbon in the most responsible way.
We will cut carbon pollution. We will get the big polluters to pay. We will protect Australian jobs. We will provide tax cuts and payment increases. We will get this job done in a Labor way, driven by our Labor values. Meanwhile, the Leader of the Opposition is hostage to sceptics. He is determined to rip assistance off Australian families. He wants to put an extra $720-a-year tax on them. He wants to go around scaring Australians about the prospects of their jobs. Well, we are a confident, creative nation. We have been up to the big challenges in the past. We will be up to this big challenge, and the Leader of the Opposition will be increasingly exposed as someone who went about generating fear with hollow and untruthful claims and as someone who is not ready to lead this nation—no ideas for the future, just relentless negativity and the saying of no, no, and no.
Live Animal Exports
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (14:33): My question is to the Prime Minister. In Australia, animals cannot be slaughtered unless they are stunned first because it is the humane thing to do. The government has resumed the live export trade but without imposing any requirement that the animals be stunned before they are killed. Why didn't the government insist on this as a condition of resumption of trade? How can the government even pretend to guarantee that animals will be killed in a humane way if this basic minimum requirement of stunning them first does not have to be met?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:33): I thank the member for Melbourne for his question. In answer to the member's question, I would inform him of the follow-ing. Australian standards do not mandate the use of stunning. It is widely used but it is not compulsory in Australia, and international standards do specify ways of humanely slaughtering animals where stunning is not used. However, we have been clear that we think stunning is to be encouraged and preferred, and that is the approach we will take as we work on the resumption of the live animal trade. In terms of the mandated standards, we have gone for international standards. Those international standards do not mandate stunning; neither do Australian standards mandate stunning. So I understand that this is a debate in which people will have a variety of perspectives.
There are, of course, some who come to the animal welfare debate with more string-ent views than others about the slaughter of animals. There are some people who believe the killing of animals for food is wholly wrong. Now, of course, people are going to bring their various perspectives to this debate. But, in working out the conditions under which we would resume the trade, the
8046 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, 7 July 2011 CHAMBER
relevant conditions that we have adopted are the international conditions. With the new export permits and control mechanisms, exporters will have a permit which enables them to export live animals, provided there is tracking, tracing, auditing and the standards are the international standards.
Carbon Pricing
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (14:35): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline for the House the importance of undertaking the big economic reforms, including putting a price on carbon for our nation's future. How has this approach been received and what is the government's response?
Mr Dutton interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Dickson is warned!
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:36): I thank the member for Canberra for her very important question because, as I outlined to the House yesterday, the global economy does face some substantial challenges and, thankfully, our economy is one of the strongest in the developed world. You can see this in the pipeline of investment in resources—the $430 billion that has been outlined by ABARES.
Of course, we have a debt position which is the envy of the developed world. We have low unemployment. When the global financial crisis hit, our unemployment rate was the same level as the United States. Now theirs is twice ours, with unemployment here at 4.9 per cent. Today we have seen the Labor force figures, which show unemployment again at 4.9 per cent. Something like 23,000 jobs have been created in the past month of June, with strong growth in full employment—something which is celebrated and supported by everybody on this side of the House. Of course, this adds to the 750,000 jobs that have been created and the 222,000 jobs created in the past year. One of the reasons why employment is so strong in this country is that this government got the big economic decisions right. We acted at the height of the global financial crisis and the global recession to support our economy. But that is not the only reason why our economy is strong compared to other developed economies. We have also over a 25-year period put in place the really big economic reforms, and that adds to our economic strength compared to the economic strength, or lack thereof, of so many other developed economies.
You would have to ask the question: where would Australia be now if we had not put in place a great reform like compulsory superannuation, which was opposed by those on that side of the House? Where would we be if the government of the day then had caved in to the fear campaign that was being run against that great reform?
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Higgins is warned!
Mr SWAN: Where would Australia be today if past governments did not have the guts to bring down the tariff wall and to float the dollar? Where would Australia be today? What these instances demonstrate is the importance of fundamental reform for the future because, if we face up to the challenges of reform, we will be doing the right thing by future generations. Those that are opposing fundamental reforms are in fact supporting lower living standards for future generations.
Government members: Shame!
Mr SWAN: Shame on them. We in this country have a strong economy because governments over 25 years have been prepared to take the tough decisions, to look to the long term, to look to those policies
Thursday, 7 July 2011 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 8047 CHAMBER
which will drive prosperity, but unfortunately those on that side of the House do not have that courage. In 25 years time there will be people looking back and saying, 'Why were they debating and contesting the science of climate change in the parliament 25 years back? Why were there sceptics then who did not believe in the importance of pricing carbon, did not believe in the science of climate change?' We on this side of the House understand the science and we understand the economics of climate change and we understand its importance for our future prosperity. The fear campaigns we are seeing now we have seen in the past, and those that run those fear campaigns will be reflected on very poorly in the pages of history.
Carbon Pricing
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney) (14:39): My question is to the Treasurer. At 2:15 yesterday in this House, you said:
We are putting a price on carbon pollution, to be paid by up to 1,000 of our largest polluters.
Treasurer, when did you find out that it is just 500?
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:40): For once I have been quoted accurately by the shadow Treasurer because I said 'up to'.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Treasurer will resume his seat. I simply say to those who argue that they think this is an important part of the day that we can sit here in silence and not give the opportunity for questions to be asked. It would absolutely assist if people could contain themselves simply for a short period of time. The Treasurer has the call, and he should be heard in silence.
Mr SWAN: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The government makes no apology whatsoever for not putting a carbon price on fuel used by passenger vehicles or light commercial vehicles. But, listening to the questions from those opposite, you somehow get the impression that they now favour a carbon price on fuel used by passenger vehicles and light commercial vehicles. That is the only logical consequence you can gain from what is being said by those opposite. Those opposite are just completely embarrassed. The government's policy is very clear.
Mr Hockey: Mr Speaker, a point of order on relevance: the Treasurer was asked only when he found out it applied to only 500 companies.
The SPEAKER: Order! The Treasurer has the call.
Mr SWAN: I thank the shadow Treasurer again for his question. We have been very clear that the largest polluters will be paying a price for their carbon pollution and we will be using the revenue to assist households and to support jobs. The reason those opposite are now so embarrassed is that their policy is actually to tax families and households $720 a year and give the money to the large polluters.
Mr Albanese: He's got leave this afternoon. He's got to go early.
The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the House is warned.
MOTIONS
Gillard Government
Censure
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (14:44): I seek leave to move a motion of censure against this government.
Leave not granted.
Mr ABBOTT: I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Warringah moving immediately—That this House censures the Government for
8048 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, 7 July 2011 CHAMBER
deceiving the Australian people by bringing in a carbon tax that is nothing more than a bad tax built on a lie.
We know that this is a bad tax built on a lie because what else have we been hearing for months now from this Prime Minister. This Prime Minister has said day in, day out in this House that this carbon tax will make the 1,000 biggest polluters pay.
What have we got today? The great disappearing carbon tax. All of a sudden it is not 1,000 it is just 500—shades of the East Timor boat people solution, shades of the climate change people's convention.
This is a Prime Minister that cannot get her story straight from one day to the next.
This is a Prime Minister who simply cannot be trusted with a new tax.
This is the government of pink batts.
This is the government of school halls.
This is the government of boat arrivals one after another, day after day, and now this government wants the Australian people to trust it.
The most incompetent government in Australian history wants the Australian people to trust it with the most complex change in Australian history. They will get it wrong on Sunday, just as they have got it wrong day in, day out in this House since February of this year. Standing orders must be suspended because this government must be censured.
This is a bad tax based on a lie. It is all economic pain for no environmental gain.
The biggest lie of all—the Prime Minister can turn her back on me, but she cannot turn her back on the Australian people.
She can turn her back on me and pretend to be interested in the conversation of her colleagues but, I tell you what, she does not talk to her colleagues about the design of a carbon tax. She does not talk to any of them about the design of the carbon tax. She does not even talk to the Treasurer, who just yesterday thought it was still 1,000 big companies. What an embarrassment!
We have got a Prime Minister who lied about the carbon tax before the election, who cannot get her story straight in this parliament, who runs away from the people at an election, who will not face the people at a plebiscite, who will not face questions in this parliament and now she turns her back. How childish, how immature, how cowardly is this Prime Minister?
This is a bad tax based on a lie, but it is not just the lie six days out from the election, the whole argument for a carbon tax is lie after lie after lie. She says that we have got to have a carbon tax to keep up with the rest of the world—wrong, just a lie, a lie that has been nailed by no less an authority than the Productivity Commission, which says there is no country in the world, not one, that is imposing an economy-wide carbon tax or emissions trading scheme.
Answer that question, Prime Minister. You can shuffle the papers all you like, but answer this question, Prime Minister: what do you think of the Productivity Commission's statement that there is no country on earth—
The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will refer his remarks through the chair.
Mr ABBOTT: I say through you, Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister should answer this question: what does she think of the Productivity Commission's statement that there is no country on earth, not one, which is imposing an economy-wide carbon tax or emissions trading scheme? Answer that question, Prime Minister, because that is the question—
Mr Albanese: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: The Leader of the Opposition continues to defy your ruling and it was the Leader of the Opposition who suspended question time. He cannot then, during a suspension motion—
Thursday, 7 July 2011 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 8049 CHAMBER
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition will refer his remarks through the chair. I remind him that this is a motion for the suspension of standing and sessional orders and that is what we are debating.
Mr ABBOTT: We must suspend standing and sessional orders because we have got to get a few answers finally from this Prime Minister. This Prime Minister has been consistently running away from the parliament of this country. Let me remind the Prime Minister of her own words just a few months ago to the National Press Club:
I believe Australians want greater scrutiny of their government and greater accountability to parliament.
It is not just the pre-election lie, what about the post-election lie?
The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will be very careful in the use of the expression 'lie' in making an accusation. I know that he has put it in his motion and the motion, if sessional and standing orders are suspended, will be in order, but the accusation of lying needs another device of this place. The Leader of the Opposition has the call.
Mr ABBOTT: Mr Speaker, I accept your point, but I simply make this point in response to the Prime Minister: how can this Prime Minister look the Australian people in the face, how can this Prime Minister expect to be taken seriously, when she said to them at the National Press Club on 31 August:
I believe Australians want greater scrutiny of their government and greater accountability to parliament.
This is a Prime Minister who has not just run away from the people but run away from this parliament. This is a Prime Minister who day after day after day in this House runs away from parliamentary scrutiny and now she is refusing parliamentary scrutiny of the biggest structural change this country has ever been asked to make.
This government is in deep, deep trouble, and why wouldn't it be in trouble, because a carbon tax only works if it hurts. This tax is going to hurt every single Australian, and members opposite know it. That is why they look so happy. Don't they look so happy, Mr Speaker?
Don't they look so cheerful every time the Prime Minister gets up and gives us another one of these long exercises in pollie waffle and robo speak?
Finally, on Sunday, members opposite are going to get the bad news.
This is a government by teleconference. That is what we are going to get—the 103 Labor members of parliament are going to ring up and get the recorded message: 'If you are a Labor member of parliament, press 1 and get a recorded message from the Prime Minister; if you are a Green member of parliament, press 2 and the Prime Minister will talk to you directly.' That is all she ever does. She talks directly to the Greens all the time.
We have had bad government in this country. We had bad government before the last election because we had a gang of four—the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, who was then the Prime Minister, and the former member for Melbourne. That gang of four gave us pink batts and school halls. Now what have we got? We have got the gang of six. We have got the Prime Minister, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, two Greens senators and two Independents. The gang of six is just as bad at process as the gang of four was. Bad process gives us bad government. Bad government is the result of bad process.
Mr Fitzgibbon: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understood this was a motion for a suspension, and the Leader of the Opposition—
8050 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, 7 July 2011 CHAMBER
The SPEAKER: The Chief Government Whip will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition knows that it is a suspension motion.
Mr ABBOTT: I simply say this to the Prime Minister: the Australian people are not mugs. They know that, if $1 is taken out of one pocket, and 50c in compensation is put back into the other pocket, that is not a good deal. The Australian people will never take a dud deal from this government. They know Paul Keating's words: 'If you don't understand it, don't vote for it. If you do understand it, you'll never vote for it. (Time expired)
The SPEAKER: Is the motion seconded?
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:55): I second the motion. This government's credibility is rock bottom. Its credibility is rock bottom because this Prime Minister's personal credibility is in tatters. At the heart of this government's problems—
Mr Fitzgibbon: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has made no attempt to address the matter before the House.
The SPEAKER: The member has been on her feet for 20 seconds. She knows what the motion is.
Ms JULIE BISHOP: The reason this government's credibility is rock bottom and the reason this Prime Minister's personal credibility is rock bottom is that this Prime Minister and this government are trying to introduce a tax, impose a burden on the Australian people, having made a statement just six days before the last election that the Australian people believed—they took this Prime Minister at her word—and how she has betrayed them. How she has deceived them. The Australian people should have learned from what happened to the member for Griffith when the member for Griffith was so betrayed by her, when he was so betrayed by his deputy, who would said she would rather—
The SPEAKER: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will relate her speech to the suspension motion.
Ms JULIE BISHOP: fly to Mars than challenge the member for Griffith—but she did. She then said to the Australian people, six days before the election, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.'
Mr Melham: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am reluctant to do this, but the reality is that, on a number of occasions, you have advised those speaking that they should speak to why there should be a suspension of standing orders, not in relation to these erroneous matters that have nothing to do with the standing orders.
The SPEAKER: The member for Banks will resume his seat. From now until the end, you wish me to strictly enforce that? We will see what problems that brings.
Ms JULIE BISHOP: The reason we seek to censure this Prime Minister is that this government is trashing parliamentary democracy. This government is refusing to answer questions day after day in question time. This government is afraid of having to face the people through this parliament. I wonder why that would be. You see, when you lie to the Australian people via the media, there are not the consequences—
The SPEAKER: Order! The member will withdraw.
Ms JULIE BISHOP: I withdraw. When you make a misleading statement in the parliament, oh yeah, there are consequences, but when you mislead the Australian people through the media there are not the consequences, other than you lose the next election because you have lost the faith of
Thursday, 7 July 2011 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 8051 CHAMBER
the Australian people. A breach of faith with the Australian people is the reason that this government's credibility is rock bottom.
When the Prime Minister was seeking to woo the Independents, to win over the Independents to prop up her minority government, she made a number of pledges. She made a number of pledges to the Independents in her speech to the National Press Club. She promised—
Mr Fitzgibbon: Who's 'she'?
Ms JULIE BISHOP: The Prime Minister. Aren't you aware of who your Prime Minister is? She made the pledge that she would strengthen the role of the national parliament in the decisions that affect the everyday lives of Australians. That was the Prime Minister's pledge—
A government member: Miaow!
Ms JULIE BISHOP: to the Independents and to the Australian people, yet she has trashed that pledge, as she has trashed every promise to the Australian people. The fact is that she looked the Australian people in the eye and said, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead,' and yet she now seeks to impose it.
The Prime Minister also said in the National Press Club address that she believed Australians wanted greater scrutiny of their government. Well, yes, they do, and they want to be able to scrutinise this government's carbon tax through the parlia-ment. They want their questions, through their representatives, answered by this Prime Minister, yet she is scurrying away from Canberra. After the lights have been turned out, after the people have left, after the members are back in their electorates, then the Prime Minister wants to make a speech on national television about the carbon tax so that she cannot be asked questions in this parliament. She is avoiding scrutiny. She is trashing parliamentary democracy. She has broken the pledge she made to the Independents about the supremacy of this parliament and she cannot be believed on anything she says. This carbon tax is based on a lie. The Prime Minister's credibility is in tatters.
The SPEAKER: Order! There was an incident during the Deputy Leader's speech. If I knew who the culprit was—
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! You can point your fingers all you like.
Ms O'Dwyer: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: with all due respect, it is very important that you look to the tapes to find out who made that catcall. I think it is an outrageous serve—
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Higgins will resume her seat. If you want me to use the word 'disgust' I will use the word 'disgust' and I would have dealt with it if I knew who it was. I have already indicated to those who control behaviour that they should do so. The Prime Minister has the call.
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (15:01): I rise to oppose the suspension of standing orders on the basis that—
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The Prime Minister will resume her seat.
Mr Pyne: Mr Speaker, a point of order: respectful of you, I believe that the House would be much more likely to remain in order if the member responsible confessed and apologised.
Mr Fitzgibbon: Mr Speaker, I believe there were a number of interjections that—
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! I am not wishing for a debate, because the Prime Minister has the call. If the Chief
8052 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, 7 July 2011 CHAMBER
Government Whip has something to say, he will not argue the case; he will just say it.
Mr Fitzgibbon: Mr Speaker, I believe there were a number of interventions from this part of the House during that provocative speech from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I make a catch-all apology for any that I may have made.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will resume her seat.
The member for Higgins will resume her place.
Regrettably, we leave tonight, and no matter who is blameless or not will be reflected upon for all the wrong reasons.
Some people have to expect that there are levels of intervention that are seen as of being of a higher level of disgust than others.
As I indicated to the House, if I had known who had made that particular intervention, it would have been dealt with. I am in the invidious position that I do not know. I think, reasonably, an invitation was made that should have been taken at its face value as being generous to actually complete and conclude the incident.
If that is not possible, regrettably I will try to keep control of the chamber whilst the Prime Minister completes the last 6½ minutes of this debate. I will pause—if nothing happens, I will give the call to the Prime Minister to complete the debate. Order! The Prime Minister has the call.
Ms GILLARD: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I rise to oppose the suspension of standing orders.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The Prime Minister will resume her seat.
Mr Pyne: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: it is with great regret that the House will find it almost impossible to move on while the member concerned hides behind anonymity. We all know who it was. The press gallery knows who it was. I would invite him to apologise to the House.
Opposition members: Hear, hear!
The SPEAKER: Order! I just want to get this straight. People might allege that everybody knows. I do not know. I absolutely understand I have the problem of controlling the House. I have made attempts to bring this to a conclusion, but that has not happened. In fact, the only action I took was to indicate to people that had control of behaviour my disgust.
Mr Fitzgibbon: Mr Speaker, I apologise in a catch-all way. I thought that covered the incident.
An opposition member: Unreservedly.
Mr Fitzgibbon: My apology is unreserved.
The SPEAKER: Order! The Chief Government Whip will resume his seat. That is an apology and I think that nothing should be added. The Prime Minister has the call.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/capital-circle
