http://jamiebriggs.com.auRSS feeds for Jamie Briggs MP60http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Blog/tabid/70/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/288/Speaking-with-Richard-Marles-on-SkyNews-AM-Agenda-Monday-31-May-2010.aspx#Comments0http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=70&ModuleID=376&ArticleID=288http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=288&PortalID=0&TabID=70http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Blog/tabid/70/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/288/Speaking-with-Richard-Marles-on-SkyNews-AM-Agenda-Monday-31-May-2010.aspxSpeaking with Richard Marles on SkyNews AM Agenda - Monday 31 May, 2010 Download part one here: LinkClick.aspx Download part two here: LinkClick.aspx    adminMon, 31 May 2010 00:01:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:288http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Blog/tabid/70/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/290/Speaking-on-Stateline-about-the-implementation-of-the-BER-Friday-28-May-2010.aspx#Comments0http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=70&ModuleID=376&ArticleID=290http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=290&PortalID=0&TabID=70http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Blog/tabid/70/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/290/Speaking-on-Stateline-about-the-implementation-of-the-BER-Friday-28-May-2010.aspxSpeaking on Stateline about the implementation of the BER - Friday 28 May, 2010 Click on the link to view: http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2010/05/28/2912634.htmadminSat, 29 May 2010 01:23:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:290http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Blog/tabid/70/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/287/Round-Ten.aspx#Comments0http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=70&ModuleID=376&ArticleID=287http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=287&PortalID=0&TabID=70http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Blog/tabid/70/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/287/Round-Ten.aspxRound Ten Essendon v Western Bulldogs - Western Bulldogs Geelong v Melbourne - Geelong Port Adelaide v Richmond - Port Adelaide Brisbane Lions v Collingwood - Collingwood St Kilda v Adelaide Crows - St Kilda Hawthorn v Sydney Swans - Hawthorn Carlton v West Coast Eagles - Carlton Fremantle v North Melbourne - FremantleadminFri, 28 May 2010 01:32:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:287http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Blog/tabid/70/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/292/Main-Committee-CONSTITUENCY-STATEMENT-Small-Business-Survey-Thursday-May-27-2010.aspx#Comments0http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=70&ModuleID=376&ArticleID=292http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=292&PortalID=0&TabID=70http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Blog/tabid/70/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/292/Main-Committee-CONSTITUENCY-STATEMENT-Small-Business-Survey-Thursday-May-27-2010.aspxMain Committee - CONSTITUENCY STATEMENT - Small Business Survey - Thursday, 27 May, 2010 Mr BRIGGS» (Mayo) (9:36 AM) —It is a pleasure to rise in this place this morning to talk about the small business survey I recently undertook with the 7,000-odd small businesses in my electorate of Mayo.  Mayo has a very large small business base. It does not have a whole lot of large businesses but is a very typical Australian situation,  with many small businesses, largely family based small businesses, employing a vast number of people who live in my electorate. The results were very telling and very worrying. I am sure members will join me in being concerned about the concern out there in the small business community about the way the Rudd Labor government is managing the economy and the impact it is having, particularly on small business their prospects and their opportunities to employ more Australians. I thought it was worth while mentioning some of the comments being made, particularly in relation to the increase in government regulation by both the Rudd Labor government and the Rann state Labor government. The combination of the two is causing so much damage to the small business communities in my electorate and, I am sure, more broadly. For instance, Alan Mayne, a local cherry producer in the Adelaide Hills, complained in his comments about the reduced flexibility and increased costs under Labor’s new modern awards implemented by the Deputy Prime Minister. Another from an owner of two small businesses in Hahndorf said: Labor’s red tape is destroying snall businesses, especially in the hospitality industry. Sippy Furtado, owner of Ginger and Spice Cafe, said: There should be more rights and flexibility for employers— and less union interference, which of course has increased with more power given to the unions under Labor’s Fair Work Act. Hilary Spacey of Middleton, down on the south coast, said it is: … impossible for small business operators to comply with the [huge] loading— imposed by Labor’s new general award. And Bronte Chapman of Mount Barker, a well-known small business person in that area, said that ‘there is too much red tape and regulation’ and that this regulation is killing small business in particular, the reintroduction of Labor’s unfair dismissal laws. These are a small sample of the countless examples provided in the feedback in the small business survey. I was overwhelmed by the number of small business people who responded to the survey. It is a genuine indication of the level of concern in the community about Rudd Labor’s policies in relation to small business Of course it will be a very different story when Tony Abbott, the member for Warringah, the Leader of the Opposition, is elected to government in the next three months because we, of course, are the best friends of small business in this country.  adminFri, 28 May 2010 01:07:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:292http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Blog/tabid/70/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/286/ADJOURNMENT-RESOURCE-SUPER-PROFITS-TAX-Wednesday-26-May-2010.aspx#Comments0http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=70&ModuleID=376&ArticleID=286http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=286&PortalID=0&TabID=70http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Blog/tabid/70/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/286/ADJOURNMENT-RESOURCE-SUPER-PROFITS-TAX-Wednesday-26-May-2010.aspxADJOURNMENT - RESOURCE SUPER PROFITS TAX - Wednesday, 26 May, 2010 Mr Briggs (Mayo) (7:50 PM) —Over the last couple of days in this place we have seen this desperate Rudd Labor government try any tactic possible to divert the Australian people’s attention from their disastrous decision to impose a great big new tax on the Australian mining industry. So desperate have the Prime Minister and his senior ministers become, they are now trying to damage the opposition’s campaign against this great big new tax on the Australian mining industry by turning to a very old and tried Labor tactic of calling into question the opposition’s motives. Over the last couple of days there have been several examples of the most senior Labor ministers, including the Prime Minister, suggesting that the opposition’s campaign against this tax is simply a way to get donations—and the minister at the table nods her head. For example, yesterday in this place the Minister for Resources and Energy said: The only people arguing against higher taxation for the resources sector in Australia are Tony Abbott and the opposition, because all they are interested in are grubby donations from certain sectors of the Australian community. On the same day the Treasurer said: We know what disrespect they have for themselves (the opposition) because they have sold out to the mining industry on this very question. And finally the Prime Minister himself described the federal opposition as a ‘puppet’ of the Minerals Council of Australia. But, as always with the Australian Labor Party, you need to look hard beyond their base, political purposes to the truthfulness of their claims. Tonight I can reveal to the parliament that the Australian Electoral Commission returns for the last financial year show that the federal Australian Labor Party has received $80,500 from the mining industry in Australia, and the federal Liberal Party has received nothing. That is right: the Australian Labor Party has received over $80,000 and the federal Liberal Party nothing. This revelation shows just how morally bankrupt this government has become. Not only has it completely lost the public argument on the great big new tax on mining; this information shows that this grubby government is attempting to put up a straw man by questioning the Liberal Party’s motives for opposing this great big new tax. We do not need donations to tell us this great big new tax is going to damage the Australian economy. We do not need donations to tell us this great big new tax will kill jobs. We stand against this great big new tax because it is the right thing to do. The only party in this country that is owned by one section of the community is the Australian Labor Party. Australian Labor Party is an owned and operated entity of the trade union movement in this country. In the last three years, the Australian Labor Party has received some $20 million in donations from the trade union movement. On top of this amount is the $56.7 million spent by the trade union movement campaigning themselves. The Liberal Party of Australia, of course, has received nothing. Today we saw some of the benefits that the trade union movement gets from these donations, when the head of the Australian Building and Construction Commission, Mr John Lloyd, was given his marching orders by the Deputy Prime Minister. This is the agency that brought the worst excesses of the Australian union movement into line, and the head of the agency gets the sack—a fair return for the $20 million investment by the unions. And of course there was a $10 million sweetener in the budget a fortnight ago for Labor’s trade union masters—a revolving slush fund if ever there was one. But donations are something that the Labor Party in this country specialises in. Today in the Australian newspaper an article by Imre Salusinszky reports: Labor’s disarray in NSW has not led to any discount in the prices the party is demanding of businesses for access to senior state government ministers. It goes on to say: Brochures sent out from Labor’s Sussex Street headquarters last week for the party’s annual Business Dialogue program reveal an unchanged asking price of $110,000 for the most expensive package, Foundation Partner. It appears that for a mere $110,000 you can get access to New South Wales ministers, including ‘a private boardroom lunch with one senior minister and four places at Premier Kristina Keneally’s end-of-year drinks’. Never has the Australian parliament seen a bigger bunch of hypocrites than the modern Australian Labor Party. Because this Prime Minister has failed to make the case for his great big new tax on mining, he has turned to desperate political smears. The SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member’s time has expired. Mr Briggs —I seek leave to table the donation records from the Australian Electoral Commission. Leave not granted.  adminThu, 27 May 2010 01:27:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:286http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Blog/tabid/70/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/296/18-local-jobs-at-risk-from-Labors-new-mining-tax.aspx#Comments0http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=70&ModuleID=376&ArticleID=296http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=296&PortalID=0&TabID=70http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Blog/tabid/70/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/296/18-local-jobs-at-risk-from-Labors-new-mining-tax.aspx18 local jobs at risk from Labor’s new mining tax Labor’s new great big tax on mining is putting the jobs of 18 local workers at risk. The Mulgundawa Salt mine has written to the Federal Treasurer Wayne Swan making it very clear that the new tax will impact enormously on the 140 year old mine putting a large question mark above its viability. Recently the Mulgundawa Salt mine spent a million dollars upgrading the facility, an investment that will be completely wiped out according the operators of the mine. This is a perfect example of the failure of the Labor Government to think through the impact of their great big new tax.  While the Rudd Labor Government likes to refer to the so-called ‘super profits’ of the big miners like BHP and Rio Tinto, what they fail to mention is the impact on small mines in local regional communities. The loss of 18 jobs in a region that has faced the most serious aspects of the water crisis would be an absolute disaster and must be avoided. The Rudd Labor Government should accept that they have not thought this great big new tax through and fix it before it causes untold damage on the economic future of Australia.adminTue, 25 May 2010 02:48:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:296http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Blog/tabid/70/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/285/APPROPRIATIONS-BILL-NO-1-NO-2-THE-FEDERAL-BUDGET-1011-Monday-24-May-2010.aspx#Comments0http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=70&ModuleID=376&ArticleID=285http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=285&PortalID=0&TabID=70http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Blog/tabid/70/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/285/APPROPRIATIONS-BILL-NO-1-NO-2-THE-FEDERAL-BUDGET-1011-Monday-24-May-2010.aspx APPROPRIATIONS BILL NO 1 & NO 2 - THE FEDERAL BUDGET 10/11 - Monday, 24 May, 2010 Mr BRIGGS (Mayo) (8:03 PM) —I rise to speak this evening on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2010-2011 in conjunction with the other appropriation bills before this place. In doing so I make the point that this budget highlights that you just cannot trust Labor with the nation’s finances. It quite clearly is the third consecutive budget where the Rudd government has failed to deliver a well thought through budget that will help set Australia up for the future. Instead, we see another big deficit to follow the previous one, which was a record deficit in our history. This year we have an even bigger budget based on tax increases and featuring the introduction of a great big new tax on mining, which the previous speaker, the member for Hasluck, unfortunately did not have enough time to continue making remarks on. I am sure she would have enjoyed spending another 20 minutes or so talking about the benefits to Western Australia of this great big new tax on mining, as so many other Western Australians on this side of the House have already highlighted! Labor’s major political claim in this Rudd budget is that it will deliver a surplus in three years time. Labor has not delivered a surplus since it has been in government, but it expects us to believe that in three years time, with no additional spending programs and with no additional programs blowing out, it will deliver a $1 billion surplus. That is a rounding error, as far as the federal budget is concerned. Coincidentally, $1 billion is the figure for the blow-out in the computers in schools program and is equal to the blow-out in the insulation program, so those on the other side tend to like that $1 billion figure. You cannot believe Labor or trust Labor when they say they will deliver a surplus in three years time because, if you look at what they have done since they have been in government, everything points in the opposite direction. The claim is based on very optimistic assumptions in the budget, including a compounding 20 per cent growth in the industry on which they have decided to whack a great big new tax of 40 per cent. That will, of course, reduce investment. But in Labor’s books, if you tax it more, they will come. On the one hand, if you tax the cigarette industry more, that will reduce the number of people taking up smoking; on the other hand, if you tax the mining industry more, people will be rushing to invest. That does not make sense, nor do Labor’s optimistic budget assumptions. This government has spent Australia into massive debt. We will have net debt of nearly $100 billion by 2013, which is around the same level of debt we found in 1996 when we took government and around the same level of debt we will have to face if we are successfully elected to government, which I believe we will be in three or so months time. This financial year will deliver the biggest budget deficit in Australia’s history and the next will not be far short of it. This will reduce the ability of the government to fund worthy programs into the future. It will put additional pressure on interest rates, and we are already seeing that in the Australian economy today. You just cannot trust the Rudd Labor government with the economy and you certainly cannot trust them to implement a program. Let us have a look at the litany of waste and mismanagement of this government. Today we saw in the galleries around us workers from the insulation industry who are now out of work. These small business people some months ago had an opportunity and a future. Their dreams were destroyed by those on the other side. I know that the member for Longman is distraught at the prospect that these insulation small businesses face. It is going to cost the Commonwealth $1 billion to clean up the mess it created when spending around $500 million in that program. That is quite an extraordinary feat, even for those on the other side. We saw another $1 billion blow-out in the computers in schools program. Again there was a complete failure in implementing the government’s policy. We have seen a $39 billion blow-out in the initial promise on the NBN, a program I suspect will never see the light of day. It was a good political promise, and that was all it was ever intended to be in 2007. We have seen over $600 million in consultancy fees. Of course, we have the mother of all blow-outs—the Building the Education Revolution or, as the member for Sturt unkindly puts it, the memorial school hall program. In the electorate of Mayo we have seen some very clear and good examples—sad examples, unfortunately—of BER mismanagement. We raised the first one in parliament with the Deputy Prime Minister last year. Of course she just brushes these off—there are no problems at all; there is no waste and mismanagement in the system; everything is going swimmingly. The first one was on Kangaroo Island. Some $100,000 was spent on architectural fees for a drawing that already existed. I notice that the Deputy Prime Minister has been busily working with her colleagues in recent days. She was so keen to deny she had any interest in the leadership last week that she was in the media by 9.30 in the morning making sure there was lots of camera footage of her denying that she was interested in the leadership. In the same week she popped up on the Sunday program. When interviewed by Laurie Oakes she also denied she was interested in the leadership. I raised with her last year the Eastern Fleurieu School, which has been treated terribly by both the federal Labor government and the state Labor government. The state government said it is a multicampus school. When the schools were first combined in the late 1990s the state government gave them an assurance they would be treated as single schools; however, when it came to this program they were treated as one school, so they missed out on about $2 million. That is a very good example of the inability of this government to implement a program properly and, therefore, fairly. We saw issues with water tanks at the Yankalilla Area School, the Macclesfield school, the Basket Range Primary School, the Stirling East Primary School and the Eden Hills Primary School, which is just out of my electorate. This is the greatest example of state government cost-shifting we have seen—something the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister both said very clearly could not happen under this program and would not be accepted under this program. The Deputy Prime Minister said they would crack down on it and there would be severe penalties. She said she would not allow state governments to cost-shift. Yet she was strangely quiet when contacted about this issue. It seems in this case it is okay for the state government to cost-shift. The Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission last year recommended that schools have appropriate levels of bushfire protection. Everyone supports that. My electorate of Mayo, which is in the Adelaide Hills and on the Fleurieu Peninsula, is a high-risk bushfire zone; therefore, most of the schools are caught up in that respect. The state government wants these schools to have bushfire water tanks. The problem here is that that is a state government requirement and they are forcing BER funding to be used for this and therefore reducing quite significantly—up to $100,000 in most cases—the amount they have for their school buildings. The Deputy Prime Minister promised she would say to her state colleagues—Jay Weatherill is the new SA education minister: ‘This is not good enough. I said this could not happen. We told you when we first announced this program that you were not to cost-shift and were not to take what should be state government spending and put it on this federal program.’ Instead, she has let her Labor mates get away with ripping off these schools and taking away their entitlements. We will hear much more about this because there are angry mums and we all know what dealing with angry mums is like. Five mums are the chairpersons of these schools and they are extremely angry. They will continue to give both this federal Labor government and their state Labor colleagues in South Australia a hard time about this. I am sure the Minister for Early Childhood Education, Childcare and Youth and Minister for Sport, who is at the table, would understand the difficulty of dealing with angry mums when it comes to these sorts of issues. This issue is a very good example of how this program has been so badly implemented by this government. This litany of waste and mismanagement will cost the Australian people for future generations. When the stimulus package was first put to this parliament we said it was too big and too fast. There ended up being a quarter of negative growth, which we hit with $100 billion of debt, which will dog generations to come. It was too much too soon and that is why we at the time opposed it—and we were right to do so. The Rudd Labor government have a record of waste and mismanagement and misunderstanding the economy. They ask us to believe them when they say that sometime in 2013 they are going to deliver a surplus budget. It is simply unbelievable. You just cannot trust the government to deliver on their promises. We will see that yet again with these rubbery budget figures. In dealing with this government and its budget promises, a particular issue has been glossed over a little in the last few weeks with the avalanche of backdowns on policy issues. It was hard to keep up. You had the greatest moral challenge of our time junked, you had the insulation program junked, and who could forget the childcare centre promise—that key election promise from last year? I am sure the Minister for Early Childhood Education, Childcare and Youth tossed and turned at night in working out the language she would have to use to junk that program—another key election promise that they just crab-crawled away from. Another one that I think highlights very much the superficial, fraudulent nature of this government was the advertising promise that it made in no uncertain terms before the last election. Thankfully, I have some of the remarks that the Prime Minister made about government advertising prior to the last election. Mr Deputy Speaker, you may remember the key promise of the then Rudd opposition was to have the Auditor-General vet all government advertising so none of it could go to air without the Auditor-General giving his tick off. That was the promise. In fact, some of the rhetoric that the now Prime Minister used to describe government advertising was as ‘a long-term cancer on our democracy’. ‘I believe this is a sick cancer within our system; it is a cancer on democracy,’ he told The 7.30 Report on 9 October 2007. In 2008, when he was elected, he implemented a role for the Auditor-General in looking at government advertising. The Auditor-General did not have vetting power but he had the ability to report that an advertising campaign complied or did not comply with the guidelines that had been laid down. We expressed concern at the time about the position the Auditor-General was being placed in. On the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit we have had many discussions with the Auditor-General about how this role has been fulfilled. However, unbeknownst to most members of this place, the government implemented a reasonably secret and quiet report headed by Dr Allan Hawke, a former chief of staff to former Prime Minister Paul Keating. So in late March, a month before this budget was due, what do you know—this report recommended that the Auditor-General’s role should be removed. The Labor Prime Minister, the opposition leader at the time, had sung from every rooftop he could possibly find that he would fix this problem. On 19 November 2007, in a doorstop interview with two Labor candidates—a gentleman named Rodney Cox, although I am not sure which seat he was running for, and Mike Symon, who is now the member for Deakin—he said: Well, I am dead serious in returning decency to public administration. What’s the machinery that we have outlined for doing this? This is government advertising. He said: That is for the Auditor General to make a determination about the content of television advertising campaigns on behalf of the government. His promise was about the content of advertising campaigns and that got junked in late March, a month before the budget, a budget which, Mr Deputy Speaker, you will be very surprised to learn contains $126 million to be spent in 15 months on the government’s election priorities—climate change, health and tax reform, to name three of the five. In fact, it gets worse for the Prime Minister with his own words. On 10 October 2007, the Prime Minister said: Why not have a system whereby three months prior to when an election is due— about now— for there to be a ban on publicly-funded advertising unless explicitly agreed between the leader of the government and the leader of the Opposition … That is an absolute undertaking from us. I believe this is a sick cancer within our system; it is a cancer on our democracy. An absolute undertaking. Sure, it is not the greatest moral challenge of our time, I accept that, but it is an absolute undertaking. Again, you just cannot trust what this Prime Minister says. You cannot trust the Rudd Labor government to deliver, to implement, any of their promises because what they say before an election they will not be held to account for after an election, and this is the greatest of all examples. I think it is even bigger than the greatest moral challenge of our time because it gets to the absolute political opportunist, the hollow man himself, and the way that this Prime Minister governs our country. It is a wrong thing that he has done. He gave an absolute undertaking that he would implement this measure as part of the Auditor-General’s role. The Auditor-General has not gone quietly, it must be said. He wrote a letter to the Special Minister of State on 29 March, two days after he had been told he had been cut from the government advertising process. He made some very interesting comments. In particular, in the second paragraph of this letter—this is in a report he released last Friday and which we discussed with him this morning in the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit—he said that the decision to remove the Auditor-General from the process was a marked contrast to the arrangements for the implementation of government policy platform ‘following the 2007 election when our view was sought on the proposed approach and the draft guidelines to apply. At the time the government was keen for my office to be directly involved in the review of advertising campaigns consistent with the various statements by Mr Rudd and the shadow minister leading up to the election’. In other words, when it suited the Labor Party to use the Auditor-General for political purposes they did. When they wanted to get him out of the road so they could run out the political government funded advertising campaigns, they did that too. That is what we saw on the weekend with the first of the public information campaigns on the health issue which are some of the most political ads you are ever likely to see. They are actually really bad ads but, putting that aside, they are the most political, blatant use of government money we have seen. So those on the other side are complete hypocrites. They cannot justify this. They will not even try to. I bet their response will be, ‘Look at what the former Howard government did.’ That will be their response instantly because they have no defence for the complete hypocrisy of their Prime Minister on this issue. This budget fails to deliver. It is a true Labor budget—big spending and big taxing. We have seen reports today of the impact of their great big tax on mining on 18 workers in a regional centre of my electorate, not BHP or Rio Tinto workers, with a salt mine most likely shutting if this tax goes ahead. What we have said and what the Leader of the Opposition has said very clearly is that people will have a choice at the next election in this respect. They can either vote for a Liberal government that will stop this great big new tax on mining, or they can vote for a Rudd Labor government or a Gillard Labor government, whichever it is by election day, that will implement this great big new tax on mining. I am sure the member for Longman will be happy to go out and sing to his electorate in Queensland about the benefits of a great big new tax on mining. I look forward to seeing his campaign literature with the great big new tax on mining all over it. I just have a sneaking suspicion that his internal polling will tell him not to say anything about it. We have a very clear position on this. We will not have a great big new tax on mining. We will cut the budget. We will bring it back into surplus. We will deliver what we did for 11½ years in government—strong economic management, contributing more jobs to the economy and giving people hope and a chance at a future, not cutting into their future dreams. (Time expired) adminTue, 25 May 2010 02:22:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:285http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Blog/tabid/70/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/284/Private-Members-Time-REPORT-ON-THE-INQUIRY-INTO-RAISING-THE-PRODUCTIVITY-GROWTH-RATE-IN-THE-AUSTRALIAN-ECONOMY-Monday-24-May-2010.aspx#Comments0http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=70&ModuleID=376&ArticleID=284http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=284&PortalID=0&TabID=70http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Blog/tabid/70/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/284/Private-Members-Time-REPORT-ON-THE-INQUIRY-INTO-RAISING-THE-PRODUCTIVITY-GROWTH-RATE-IN-THE-AUSTRALIAN-ECONOMY-Monday-24-May-2010.aspxPrivate Members Time - REPORT ON THE INQUIRY INTO RAISING THE PRODUCTIVITY GROWTH RATE IN THE AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY, Monday, 24 May, 2010 Mr BRIGGS (Mayo) (8:45 PM) —I rise in part to support the member for Dobell, the chair of the Standing Committee on Economics, who did a good job in managing this inquiry, as did Stephen Boyd and his assistants in the committee secretariat—Sharon Bryant, Chris Kane and Renee Burton—who helped enormously with what some might describe as a rather dry subject but a very important one nonetheless. It was a good inquiry and we had high-quality submissions. We took evidence from interesting and intelligent sources and quite a good report has been prepared by the committee. The report is entitled Inquiry into raising the productivity growth rate in the Australian economy. Those on the coalition side of this committee largely agreed with the report’s recommendations. There were a couple of areas of dispute, but we were able to manage those reasonably amicably towards the end. We were concerned that the government was trying to create more talkfests. We wanted to see some more push for action out of the report, which contains some high-quality recommendations. We were concerned particularly with recommendation 3—that the government, as it has been known to do in its term, not create another talkfest and review in lieu of taking real action. But, in the end, for the purposes of getting the report done and tabled, we succumbed to the pressure of the chair. When the report was released some weeks ago, we made a point of highlighting recommendation 6, which talks about an evidence based approach to policy, which we absolutely agree with. We are surprised that the government have not taken their own advice. There was no productivity report associated with the Building the Education Revolution—the memorial school halls program, as some people call it—the laptops in schools program, which has unfortunately had a billion dollar blow-out, or indeed the cash splash. There has been no productivity benefit analysis of the National Broadband Network and they are planning to spend $43 billion there. We are disappointed that recommendation 6 has not been taken up by the government. Hopefully it will be taken up in the future. I am sure a future Abbott-led coalition government will be keen to ensure that we have an evidence based policy regime rather than the cash splash, big spending approach of this government. The shadow Treasurer made a very good and detailed speech about the economic challenges facing Australia and identified productivity as the No. 1 issue from the coalition’s perceptive. He highlighted several areas where we need to particularly focus, and I think they are worthwhile noting in conjunction with this report. He made the point that we should ensure that community infrastructure, both privately and publicly owned, is adequate and efficient—roads, rail, ports, utilities, telecommunications, the legal system and so on. Government investment in infrastructure should be subject to cost benefit analysis—the same point as the report makes. The second way governments can improve productivity is to lower the cost of capital and maximise the availability of capital for private business. Governments should not be competing with the private sector for scarce capital, especially once businesses have returned to the market. This is the issue of crowding out—government borrowing too much money. The third step is to minimise drag from the government—government regulations and taxation. We know about government regulations in this area. Competitive markets is the fourth area. The fifth area is concerned with skilling the workforce. The sixth area concerns encouraging innovation, which of course is very important and is dealt with in the report. I think the report adds very much to the economic debate in this country. It contains a great deal of very important and relevant information from a range of sources that appeared before the committee to give evidence. Submissions to the committee contain good suggestions and are well worthwhile. I commend the report to the House and recommend members read it from cover to cover. I am sure they will be a lot wiser for it. The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr S Georganas)—Does the member for Dobell wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?adminTue, 25 May 2010 02:12:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:284http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Blog/tabid/70/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/281/Private-Members-Motion-HEALTH-REFORM-Monday-24-May-2010.aspx#Comments0http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=70&ModuleID=376&ArticleID=281http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=281&PortalID=0&TabID=70http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Blog/tabid/70/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/281/Private-Members-Motion-HEALTH-REFORM-Monday-24-May-2010.aspxPrivate Members Motion - HEALTH REFORM, Monday 24 May, 2010 Mr Briggs (Mayo) (9:24 PM) —I understand completely why the member for Dobell would want to get New South Wales Labor out of the health system. I understand why he, as a New South Wales member, would want New South Wales Labor as far away as possible at the next federal election in a few months time because anything the New South Wales Labor Party has touched in recent times does not turn out to be all that good. So I can understand his desperate desire to talk about getting rid of the New South Wales government’s role in the health system. But, unfortunately, the so-called plan of the Prime Minister does not do that; it does not do much at all. It is a health policy for an election, not for the future, which is just so typical of this Prime Minister. Unfortunately, as much as it pains me to do it, I have to disagree with the three points in the motion of the member for Solomon on health and hospitals. There are only three points in it. I disagree with each of them and it is very rare for me to disagree with the member for Solomon. I cannot congratulate this government for yet another spin job. I cannot acknowledge an investment which does not exist. I cannot accept the third point, which just continues to outline a complete fib that those on the other side have been told to push around by the hollow men up there in the Prime Minister’s office about the so-called record of the Leader of the Opposition, who was a very good minister when he was the Minister for Health and Ageing. When it comes to this Prime Minister, this is his record on health. He promised to fix hospitals by mid-2009 and he has failed. He promised to take them over and he has not. He promised to deliver 36 GP superclinics—not super GP clinics but GP superclinics—but only three are open. We have just heard about the temporary one in the electorate of Dobell, which is alongside the temporary deficit. He promised to recruit 7,500 hospital nurses, but only 1,000 were recruited in 2008 and just 617 recruited in the last two years. He promised to recruit 1,000 nurses for aged care but only 139 were recruited. He has now dumped the Bringing Nurses Back into the Workforce scheme. He promised to deliver 12 defence health clinics but not one has opened. Finally, he promised to cut elective surgery waiting lists, but they are longer than they have ever been. You cannot trust Rudd Labor when it comes to health, like you cannot trust them on the economy and you cannot trust them to implement any sort of program. When they cannot implement a pink batts program, how can you trust them with the $100 billion health system? Mr Craig Thomson interjecting— Mr Briggs —Don’t worry, Member for Dobell, I will be on health; there is no doubt about that. It is the easiest story to pick apart that you could imagine. So desperate was the Prime Minister to try and have something to take to the election that he had to junk his commitment to give the Auditor-General a role in government advertising at the end of March so that he could have an advertising program on—guess which subject—health. It is an advertising program that no longer has to go through the Auditor-General. It is an advertising program he promised he would never do when he was in opposition. The Prime Minister, when he was in opposition, said, ‘Why don’t we have a system whereby a ban is placed on publicly funded government advertising unless agreed between the leader of the government and the Leader of the Opposition for three months prior to an election?’ It is now three months before an election and what did we see on the weekend? The most political government advertising we have seen in this place in a generation. It is the most outrageous abuse of government money, and it was all done after they cut the Auditor-General out of the process. The government stood on their high horse before the last election and now just before this election they dump the promise. It is just so typical of this government. You cannot trust what they say before an election because it will all change after the election. Whether it is the greatest moral challenge of our time or an absolute commitment on government advertising, you cannot trust them. You cannot trust them when it comes to health. You would not put these blokes in charge of the $100 billion health system after you have seen what they did with the memorial school halls program and the pink batts insulation program. They cannot implement a program. You would not trust them with the $100 billion health system because they do not have the ability to implement a program. What they do have is an ability to run an election campaign, and that is all this is about. The health policy is a cover for an election campaign policy. It is one of those things that will be dumped after the election, like ‘the greatest moral challenge of all time’ was dumped after the last election, like the government advertising fraudulent claim was dumped just before this budget so that they could run ad after ad after ad leading to this election. The SPEAKER —Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.adminTue, 25 May 2010 01:44:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:281http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Blog/tabid/70/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/280/Main-Committee-AUSTRALIAN-WINE-AND-BRANDY-CORPORATION-AMENDMENT-BILL-2009-Monday-24-May-2010.aspx#Comments0http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=70&ModuleID=376&ArticleID=280http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=280&PortalID=0&TabID=70http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Blog/tabid/70/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/280/Main-Committee-AUSTRALIAN-WINE-AND-BRANDY-CORPORATION-AMENDMENT-BILL-2009-Monday-24-May-2010.aspxMain Committee - AUSTRALIAN WINE AND BRANDY CORPORATION AMENDMENT BILL 2009, Monday 24 May, 2010 Mr Briggs (Mayo) (5:23 PM) —The old saying that you learn something new every day is certainly true in this place. I learnt today that Queensland produces wine. I did not know that Queensland produced wine. I knew that they stole our water to do lots of things but I did not know wine was one of the things that they did with it. Mr Hale interjecting— Mr Briggs —Member for Solomon, I do not think they produce wine in Darwin but they certainly drink a lot of it; there is no doubt about that. They drink some very high quality Adelaide Hills wine in Darwin—the sav blanc suits those sorts of climatic conditions perfectly. I imagine the member for Solomon would enjoy that before his pints of beer. I rise to speak this evening in support of the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Amendment Bill 2009 and its passage through this place. Of course, the member for Kingston will agree that the wine industry is extremely important to South Australia. It is not without its challenges at this time, whether it be in the Adelaide Hills, in Langhorne Creek, in Fleurieu or indeed in McLaren Vale. It is a hugely important industry to our economy and to Australia’s economy as well and is driven very much from South Australia through the Barossa Valley and the other regions—including Coonawarra, of course, in the seat of the member for Barker. It employs many South Australians. It has many small family businesses. Many larger businesses are involved in the industry as well. In my electorate there are about 450 of South Australia’s wine-producing establishments, with a rough value to our economy of about $300 million per annum. We have about 16 per cent of South Australia’s wine industry, which in 2007-08 was worth about $1.8 billion to the South Australian economy. In anyone’s language, that is a very important industry to our state, so if there is good legislation before the parliament we will support it to ensure that the industry is stronger than it was before. We support this bill as it provides for a much-needed amendment to the current legislation. It will bring the Australia-European Community Agreement on Trade in Wine into force. This agreement was signed in Brussels on 1 December 2008 by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The amendments are strongly supported by the industry, including the Winemakers Federation of Australia. I have spoken to Stephen Strachan about this issue; in fact, he appeared before the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties when this issue was before that committee and gave it his strong endorsement. He is a very strong representative of the wine industry in Australia and in particular in South Australia. He has a very large soft spot for the wine industry in South Australia and is a great supporter. The agreement ensures that winemakers have ongoing access to Australia’s largest export market. During 2007-08 Australia exported to European countries 397 million litres of wine worth $1.3 billion, accounting for just over half of Australia’s wine exports that year. The amendments will give Australian wine producers European recognition of an additional 16 Australian winemaking techniques and simpler arrangements for approving such techniques that may develop in the future. The bill provides simplified label requirements and protection for Australia’s 112 registered geographic indicators. Secondly, it further strengthens the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Act by protecting Australia’s reputation as a quality wine producer through the Label Integrity Program. The program was originally established to increase consumer confidence in labelling. Finally, the bill provides for tough offence provisions and proposed penalties, which include imprisonment, for breaches. These will enhance and improve industry compliance. In that respect, we support the bill. I will use this occasion to make some remarks about the challenges that the industry faces in my electorate and more broadly in South Australia. They are significant challenges. The first, of course, is the ongoing challenge with water and access to water in South Australia, which is all tied to how much we get across the border—how much is allowed to flow down through Queensland and New South Wales and how much is taken out in Victoria. We have an ongoing and major interest in the activities of those states, and we are of course continually disappointed by the failure of this government to have a truly national system which can regulate the use of and access to water by those eastern states, which do tend to take more than their fair share, in our view. That has flow-on effects for industries like mine in Langhorne Creek, which is right next to the Lower Lakes, in South Australia, and we are therefore continually interested. That is why I was very pleased that the Leader of the Opposition announced some time ago that when we are elected to government, if we cannot get the state premiers to agree to hand over their powers in relation to the management of Australia’s water, we will hold a referendum to ensure that that will be the case. That is a major ongoing challenge. The more immediate challenge for the wine industry is the glut, which is going to affect many producers throughout the state. The Riverland is facing the double whammy of the glut and the restrictions on irrigation. This is also affecting other regions, but probably not so much. There were reports over the weekend that the Barossa and other regions, including Langhorne Creek and McLaren Vale, are looking at pulling out up to 20 per cent of their vines. That will have a real effect on many of the workers, on the industry and on small businesses. While consumers will benefit over the next few years from lower prices for very high-quality South Australian wine, we will have to go through a very difficult period where many people will face some very challenging economic circumstances. It is important that governments both state and federal are aware of this and ready to assist those people if necessary. I know that Steven Strachan and the Winemakers Federation are working very hard with government to ensure that the industry is managed properly so that we do not have communities destroyed by the situation relating to the glut. It is something we need to continue to watch and face up to. I went to the Langhorne Creek winemakers’ lunch on 30 April this year. It is always a very enjoyable day. Winemakers expressed concern about the industry and the impact of the glut. Added to that are the water challenges that South Australia faces. The winemakers are very conscious of the impact that that is having on an extremely important industry in South Australia. I commend the bill to the House. adminTue, 25 May 2010 01:42:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:280http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Blog/tabid/70/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/298/Honouring-the-Past.aspx#Comments0http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=70&ModuleID=376&ArticleID=298http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=298&PortalID=0&TabID=70http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Blog/tabid/70/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/298/Honouring-the-Past.aspxHonouring the Past The Strathalbyn National Trust Museum has been granted $879 under the Saluting Their Service program, honouring the service of the First and Second World War servicemen and women in Mayo. A Federal Government initiative, Saluting Their Service provides funding to projects and activities that directly commemorate Australia’s servicemen and women who served in wars, conflicts and peace operations. The grant will enable the museum to continuously display names, photographs and service details of the First and Second World Wars and local service personnel on a television, and also purchase three mannequins to display military uniforms. It’s projects such as these that are so important in preserving our wartime heritage, and promoting appreciation and understanding of the role that those who served have played in shaping the nation.  I pay tribute to the Museum for their efforts to keep the legacy of servicemen and women alive and I congratulate them on their successful application.adminMon, 24 May 2010 05:26:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:298http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Blog/tabid/70/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/372/Honouring-the-Past.aspx#Comments0http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=70&ModuleID=376&ArticleID=372http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=372&PortalID=0&TabID=70http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Blog/tabid/70/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/372/Honouring-the-Past.aspxHonouring the Past The Strathalbyn National Trust Museum has been granted $879 under the Saluting Their Service program, honouring the service of the First and Second World War servicemen and women in Mayo. A Federal Government initiative, Saluting Their Service provides funding to projects and activities that directly commemorate Australia’s servicemen and women who served in wars, conflicts and peace operations. The grant will enable the museum to continuously display names, photographs and service details of the First and Second World Wars and local service personnel on a television, and also purchase three mannequins to display military uniforms. It’s projects such as these that are so important in preserving our wartime heritage, and promoting appreciation and understanding of the role that those who served have played in shaping the nation.  I pay tribute to the Museum for their efforts to keep the legacy of servicemen and women alive and I congratulate them on their successful application.adminMon, 24 May 2010 03:47:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:372http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Blog/tabid/70/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/297/RUDD-BUDGET-LEAVES-CHAPLAINS-OUT.aspx#Comments0http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=70&ModuleID=376&ArticleID=297http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=297&PortalID=0&TabID=70http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Blog/tabid/70/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/297/RUDD-BUDGET-LEAVES-CHAPLAINS-OUT.aspxRUDD BUDGET LEAVES CHAPLAINS OUT The Rudd Government has failed to maintain the National School Chaplaincy Program in the Federal Budget, delivering a blow to school communities across Australia. Despite figures showing that 97% of school principals who have engaged a chaplain strongly support the program and its subsequent benefits to their school community, the Government has not committed additional funding to this. A number of schools within the electorate of Mayo have contacted my office to express their deep concerns and want the Government to come clean and make their intentions for the funding clear. Chaplains play a valuable role in schools, supporting students and school communities by offering pastoral care and guidance across religious denominations and beliefs, with their beliefs representative of the school communities they work in. In particular, the National School Chaplaincy Program helps students with behavioural problems and those who face social difficulties. Bullying in schools and loneliness is not uncommon and the program actively helps students faced with these challenges. Schools are given the option to hire part-time chaplains and over 1,900 schools Australia wide have taken up this great opportunity. The Federal Liberal Party has already committed $165 million to continue the School Chaplaincy Program over the forward estimates if elected this year, securing its future.  Students should not have to miss out on exposure to the guidance a school chaplain can offer, just because of an incompetent Rudd Labor Government.  adminFri, 21 May 2010 05:23:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:297http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Blog/tabid/70/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/279/Round-Nine.aspx#Comments0http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=70&ModuleID=376&ArticleID=279http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=279&PortalID=0&TabID=70http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Blog/tabid/70/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/279/Round-Nine.aspxRound Nine Collingwood v Geelong - Collingwood North Melbourne v Western Bulldogs - Western Bulldogs Sydney Swans v Fremantle - Sydney Swans Essendon v Richmond - Essendon Melbourne v Port Adelaide - Melbourne Adelaide Crows v Brisbane Lions - Brisbane Lions Carlton v Hawthorn - Carlton West Coast Eagles v St Kilda - West Coast EaglesadminFri, 21 May 2010 05:08:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:279http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Blog/tabid/70/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/278/You-can-add-ads-to-Rudds-list-of-policy-backflips.aspx#Comments0http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=70&ModuleID=376&ArticleID=278http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=278&PortalID=0&TabID=70http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Blog/tabid/70/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/278/You-can-add-ads-to-Rudds-list-of-policy-backflips.aspxYou can add ads to Rudd’s list of policy backflips Have you heard a radio advert lately telling you that the new health reforms are really good for you? They are hard to miss and there is avalanche to come. According to the Budget, the Rudd Government will spend $126 million on five campaigns in the next few months. These campaigns cover topics including climate change, tax reform, health reform, broadband and paid parental leave. $33 million will be spent in the next six weeks alone. You would be right to be surprised by this given the high talk and large promises made by Kevin 07 prior to the last election. He promised in May 2007 that a Rudd Government would have the Auditor General ‘vet’ all government advertising programmes over $250,000 to ensure that they were not political. After watering down this promise in government, the new ‘Kevin 10’ dumped this promise two days before Easter this year. In fact, he was so strong in his claim, he actually said to Matthew Franklin at The Australian: “Why not have a system whereby three months prior to when an election is due ... for there to be a ban on publicly-funded advertising unless explicitly agreed between the leader of the government and the leader of the Opposition?" Mr Rudd said. "That is an absolute undertaking from us. I believe this is a sick cancer within our system. It is a cancer on democracy." An ‘absolute commitment’ which is interesting because we are now about three months from an election and one may be entitled to think that at this stage Kevin 10 would be seeking Tony Abbott’s agreement on which ads should go ahead and which should not. Now Kevin 10 may do that, but it does seem quite strange that the list of advertising campaigns just happens to fit into the political priorities for the Labor Government and these are issues that are undoubtedly contentious and unlikely to be agreed to by the Opposition. One thing is for sure, the climate change advertising won’t mention the words ‘greatest moral challenge of our time’ or for that matter ‘political courage’. To make it worse, as the Punch revealed here previously, punters are also faced with State Labor Governments advertising for their federal comrades. The funny thing is that in Kevin 07’s day he had a plan to fix State Labor Governments advertising as well when he said: "If we form the next government of Australia, that (the Auditor General vetting) would be a requirement that we would make through the Council of Australian Governments to all states and territories The fact is Kevin 07 and Kevin 10 barely share the same DNA. In 2007, Kevin 07 was an economic conservative. In 2010, he has handed down the biggest budget deficit in history.  In 2007, Kevin 07 wanted 260 more child care centres. In 2010, Kevin 10 dumps the policy altogether. In 2007, Kevin 07declared climate change to be the greatest moral challenge of our time. In 2010, Kevin 10 can’t run away from it fast enough. So, in the coming months when you hear Kevin Rudd say he is ‘absolutely committed’ to a policy, don’t trust him because what he says before an election won’t stand after an election. You can be sure that the Rudd/Gillard Government will always do what is in the Labor Party’s interest, not that of Australia’s future.    adminTue, 18 May 2010 22:45:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:278http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Blog/tabid/70/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/277/Speaking-with-Richard-Marles-on-SkyNews-AM-Agenda-May-17-2010.aspx#Comments0http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=70&ModuleID=376&ArticleID=277http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=277&PortalID=0&TabID=70http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Blog/tabid/70/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/277/Speaking-with-Richard-Marles-on-SkyNews-AM-Agenda-May-17-2010.aspxSpeaking with Richard Marles on SkyNews AM Agenda - May 17, 2010 Download part one here: LinkClick.aspx Download part two here: LinkClick.aspx Download part three here: LinkClick.aspxadminMon, 17 May 2010 01:49:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:277http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Blog/tabid/70/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/276/Budget-Reply-Interview-with-5MU.aspx#Comments0http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=70&ModuleID=376&ArticleID=276http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=276&PortalID=0&TabID=70http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Blog/tabid/70/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/276/Budget-Reply-Interview-with-5MU.aspxBudget Reply Interview with 5MU Download here: LinkClick.aspxadminMon, 17 May 2010 00:28:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:276http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Blog/tabid/70/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/275/Speech-to-the-House-BROADCASTING-LEGISLATION-AMENDMENT-DIGITAL-TELEVISION-BILL-2010-13-May-2010.aspx#Comments0http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=70&ModuleID=376&ArticleID=275http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=275&PortalID=0&TabID=70http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Blog/tabid/70/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/275/Speech-to-the-House-BROADCASTING-LEGISLATION-AMENDMENT-DIGITAL-TELEVISION-BILL-2010-13-May-2010.aspxSpeech to the House - BROADCASTING LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (DIGITAL TELEVISION) BILL 2010, 13 May, 2010 Mr Briggs (Mayo) (1:47 PM) —For that sales job I think the member for Braddon has an alternative career on the Digital Switchover Taskforce as the salesperson for digital switchover around Tasmania, in particular. He certainly has a passion for digital TV. I agree with part of what the member for Braddon said. It is a wonderful service and it will benefit many people. Many people now get the benefit of the additional stations and the additional content that we are seeing. As a young family we have a great use for ABC3, the kids channel, which in a previous life I was very passionate about ensuring. I was very pleased when it went ahead and I again congratulate Mark Scott on his initiative with that. However, unfortunately, as with so many Rudd government programs, the problem here is not the idea but the implementation of the program itself. That is why I very strongly support the member for Casey, the shadow minister for broadband, communications and the digital economy, in his second reading amendment to the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Television) Bill 2010 which condemns the government for its lack of understanding and its inability to implement what is a very important digital switchover. In my electorate, the electorate of Mayo, which has similar issues to those of the electorate of Braddon with topography and the like, there is no greater example of the failure of the Rudd government to implement this digital switchover in a coherent and well thought through and planned fashion. Unfortunately, that means that yet again more taxpayers’ money will be wasted by a government that simply cannot implement a program. In my electorate two areas in particular have a challenge with digital television. The first is Yankalilla where, pleasingly, thanks to the good work of Senator Mary Jo Fisher, as was revealed recently in a Senate committee, five retransmission towers will be upgraded. That is good news. We are now seeking meetings with the broadcasters to ensure that that happens quickly—not in 2013 but quickly. I congratulate Mayor Peter Whitford, his deputy and the Yankalilla Council for the work they have done in ensuring that Yankalilla will be picked up in this process, as it seems it will be. Yankalilla, not far from Adelaide but in a very hilly part of South Australia—a beautiful part of South Australia—has many valleys and peaks and has traditionally had problems with television. In fact, it only got analog television not that many years ago, thanks to black spot funding for the self-help towers there. It is a relief for those people who will be able to get digital TV. Some people in Yankalilla, particularly in the Inman Valley, will require the satellite service. I think the satellite service does have some value, and in that respect I support some of the actions of the government. There is of course a concern about the cost for people installing the satellite service. Some clarity of how much it will cost them will be important in the next little while so that people can start to plan around whether they will be able to get those services or not. Some people will get far better television coverage than they have ever had before, which is a good thing and will give them more opportunities. So, with Yankalilla, it does appear that the broadcasters have done the right thing and have come on board. I congratulate them for that, because unfortunately the Rudd government has completely ignored the concerns of that area. The Yankalilla Council last year had a public meeting, which I attended with my state colleague Michael Pengelly. An invitation was sent to Senator Conroy; he did not attend. An invitation was sent to all the South Australian Labor senators and none of those people attended. There was a representative from the Digital Switchover Taskforce and she did a sterling job representing the political masters of the government. That is not actually her role, but she did a tremendous job in fulfilling it that night and answering what questions she could. However, the government’s approach shows a complete lack of understanding of regional and rural Australia and its needs when it comes to issues like digital television and the services that people expect in metropolitan areas which should be delivered in regional areas, particularly in areas like Yankalilla, which are not that far away from metropolitan Adelaide. The second area where we have an ongoing concern is in the Adelaide Hills Council district. It is the Forreston repeater station, which covers Forreston obviously, Cudlee Creek and, more importantly, Gumeracha—in the sense that there are more people in Gumeracha, not that they are more important. That issue is not yet resolved. These places were on the B list which was tabled at the Senate committee I mentioned earlier. It is claimed they will be covered by upgrades to current towers, or gap fillers. However, there is no clarity about this at this point in time. We are seeking to meet with Free TV and the broadcasters to see whether we can get some clarity about how they think the people in these areas are going to be covered. We are hoping to ensure that they will be covered. The people at Gumeracha are very conscious that they cannot get digital TV right now. They are 20 kilometres away from the Mount Lofty television tower which services the whole of Adelaide but they cannot actually get digital TV from that tower. It just shows the problem with the topography, which is an ongoing issue. However, it makes sense that, if these areas are going to be picked up, they should be picked up now so that communities can be relieved of these concerns and we do not have ongoing uncertainty. I disagree with the member for Braddon: I think people do have an expectation when they buy these products that the government is telling them to buy—with ads on television, in newspapers and so forth—that they will be able to use them, particularly in a place not that far from a major broadcast tower. So there is a need for that issue to be resolved more quickly. The member for Casey, the shadow minister, who is doing a very good job on this issue, visited my electorate only two weeks ago. We sat down with the Adelaide Hills Council and local concerned residents and we talked about an action plan to ensure that the government is aware of these problems and an action plan to ensure that we know that the implementation of digital TV for these people will go ahead. We are planning to talk to Free TV with the Adelaide Hills Council and ensure that they are picked up and that these people will be able, sooner rather than later, to get the great benefits that digital TV offers. Digital TV does offer excellent benefits for consumers. It offers more content and it offers a genuine future for TV going into this century. It was initially the idea of the former government, and it was a good idea. It is a good thing that the Rudd government is implementing it. Unfortunately the implementation is the problem, as it is with so many other programs—the insulation program, the solar panels program, the Deputy Prime Minister’s memorial hall program. The fact that these programs have been implemented so badly that they are costing much more money than initially thought is reflected by the dip in the opinion polls for those on the other side in recent times. Unfortunately we have seen that with the digital TV implementation also. Again, people in regional and rural Australia are the ones who first miss out, because there is just no understanding of their issues on that side. There are so few on that side who live outside the city confines. Mr Champion —What about me? Mr Briggs —Except, of course, the member for Wakefield. I know he also has several digital TV issues in his electorate. I heard his contribution earlier on. He is trying, with a forced smile, to endure what is happening with this issue. I know he is very concerned privately about not getting digital TV in certain parts of his electorate, which is a very beautiful part of South Australia—not quite as nice as the Adelaide Hills, but a nice part of South Australia. Mr Champion —I’ve got better wines! Mr Briggs—He does have some areas which have some very high-quality wine. I will agree about that with the member for Wakefield, although in my electorate of course we do have Langhorne Creek and Adelaide Hills wineries. Government members interjecting— Mr Briggs —We are in bipartisan agreement that we have very high-quality red wine in South Australia. The second reading amendment moved by the member for Casey, the shadow minister, is a very good one and it highlights the issues that are not being addressed by this government. The amendment reads: … the House: (1)   condemns the Government for its lack of understanding of television broadcasting issues across regional Australia; (2)   further condemns the Government for its inadequate planning and preparation for the switch-over to digital television across regional Australia, beginning in the Mildura region on 1 July 2010; (3)   warns the Government that its failures to date risks leaving some Australians without television reception; and (4)   calls on the Government to guarantee that Australians will not lose television reception on each digital switch-over day as a result of inadequate planning and preparation. I think that is ultimately the point here—that this government just cannot implement a program. The Australian people are seeing that day in, day out. That is our greatest concern, and it is a concern that I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will rightly point out in the very highly anticipated address he will make tonight to the Australian people. This government cannot implement a program. It is spending far too much money because it cannot implement programs. It is costing the future generations of our country massively with its debt. This issue highlights that particularly. The digital TV implementation is as bad as the implementation of the insulation program, the Green Loans Program and the solar panels program. It is going to be another one of these issues which unfortunately cost the Australian people too much money, too much in higher taxes. We have seen a great big new tax this week to pay for all these failures. I commend the second reading amendment moved by the member for Casey. With those few remarks, I will conclude.adminFri, 14 May 2010 00:25:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:275http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Blog/tabid/70/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/274/Round-Eight.aspx#Comments0http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=70&ModuleID=376&ArticleID=274http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=274&PortalID=0&TabID=70http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Blog/tabid/70/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/274/Round-Eight.aspxRound Eight Fremantle v Collingwood - Fremantle Western Bulldogs v Sydney Swans - Western Bulldogs Melbourne v West Coast Eagles - Melbourne Brisbane Lions v Geelong - Brisbane Lions North Melbourne v Adelaide Crows - Adelaide Crows Richmond v Hawthorn - Hawthorn Port Adelaide v Carlton - Carlton St Kilda v Essendon - St KildaadminThu, 13 May 2010 23:39:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:274http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Blog/tabid/70/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/273/Round-Seven.aspx#Comments0http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=70&ModuleID=376&ArticleID=273http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=273&PortalID=0&TabID=70http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Blog/tabid/70/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/273/Round-Seven.aspxRound Seven Melbourne v Western Bulldogs - Western Bulldogs Essendon v Port Adelaide - Port Adelaide West Coast Eagles v Hawthorn - West Coast Eagles Collingwood v North Melbourne - Collingwood Brisbane Lions v Fremantle - Brisbane Lions Geelong v Sydney Swans - Geelong Adelaide Crows v Richmond -  Adelaide Crows St Kilda v Carlton - CarltonadminFri, 07 May 2010 07:27:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:273http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Blog/tabid/70/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/271/Speaking-with-Richard-Marles-on-Skynews-AM-Agenda.aspx#Comments0http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=70&ModuleID=376&ArticleID=271http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=271&PortalID=0&TabID=70http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Blog/tabid/70/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/271/Speaking-with-Richard-Marles-on-Skynews-AM-Agenda.aspx  Download part one here: LinkClick.aspx Download part two here: LinkClick.aspxadminWed, 05 May 2010 00:02:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:271