http://jamiebriggs.com.auRSS feeds for Jamie Briggs MP60http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Mayo/MayoEvents/tabid/74/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/198/Construction-Chief-Confirms-Productivity-In-Jeopardy-Under-Labor.aspx#Comments0http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=74&ModuleID=376&ArticleID=198http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=198&PortalID=0&TabID=74http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Mayo/MayoEvents/tabid/74/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/198/Construction-Chief-Confirms-Productivity-In-Jeopardy-Under-Labor.aspxConstruction Chief Confirms Productivity In Jeopardy Under Labor The heads of the Master Builders Association Australia today confirmed that productivity gains in the building and construction sector will be reversed under Julia Gillard’s plan to abolish the industry watchdog, the Australian Building and Construction Commission.   MBAA CEO Wilhelm Harnisch and Head Economist Peter Jones told a House of Representative Economics Committee hearing into productivity that the productivity gains in the industry have been because of the massive reduction in industrial action. This reduction was brought about by the introduction of the industry specific laws and the ABCC.   Labor’s new building laws will weaken the power to stop strikes and unlawful activity therefore risking a return to the days of poor productivity.   According to the Master Builders, the ABCC has been a vital part in delivering these results and abolishing it will reverse the improved performance of this sector.   “Since 2005 we have gone from record high levels of industrial action to now being at record lows” said Mr Harnisch.   The building and construction industry makes a massive contribution to the Australian economy.   Returning to the dark old days in this industry will cost consumers more and reduce Australia’s economic performance.   Mr Harnisch also said that the ABCC had contributed positively to the improvements in safety on building sites and its removal will also endanger this performance.   This evidence confirms that Labor’s plan to remove a “tough cop on the beat” in the construction sector was foolish and placed the interests of unions ahead of the economy and improved productivity.      adminFri, 30 Oct 2009 02:52:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:198http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Mayo/MayoEvents/tabid/74/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/196/Women-Farmers-Grants-Available.aspx#Comments0http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=74&ModuleID=376&ArticleID=196http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=196&PortalID=0&TabID=74http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Mayo/MayoEvents/tabid/74/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/196/Women-Farmers-Grants-Available.aspxRECOGNISING WOMEN FARMERS GRANTS Local individuals and organisations throughout the electorate of Mayo that support the role of women in primary industries are now eligible to apply for grants of up to $50,000 under the Recognising Women Farmers Grants program.   More and more, women are taking a leadership role in the development of local primary industries and these grants aim to support activities and events that allow women to share their knowledge and to develop skills and business networks.   The grants offer support for activities that build the leadership and representative capacity of women in primary industries – to strengthen primary and industry productivity and build rural, regional and remote community resilience.   Recognising Women Farmers offers support to stage events for women living and working in rural, regional and remote Australia that: Build and share knowledge and experience Increase access to planning tools and resources Develop leadership and management skills Develop programs to increase participation in agriculture, fisheries and forestry industries Develop skills to contribute more effectively to government and industry decision making Build networks among rural, regional and remote Australians. I encourage local organisations to take advantage of the grants in order to host events that further the involvement of women in primary industry.   Applications close on Friday 13 November and further information and eligibility criteria can be obtained by calling 1800 638 746 or visit www.daff.gov.au/climatechange/australias-farming-future/community_networks_and_capacity_building/recognising_women_farmersadminWed, 28 Oct 2009 07:33:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:196http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Mayo/MayoEvents/tabid/74/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/197/Speech-to-the-House-CARBON-POLLUTION-REDUCTION-SCHEME-BILL-2009-28-October-2009.aspx#Comments0http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=74&ModuleID=376&ArticleID=197http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=197&PortalID=0&TabID=74http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Mayo/MayoEvents/tabid/74/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/197/Speech-to-the-House-CARBON-POLLUTION-REDUCTION-SCHEME-BILL-2009-28-October-2009.aspxSpeech to the House, CARBON POLLUTION REDUCTION SCHEME BILL 2009, 28 October 2009 Mr BRIGGS (Mayo) (7:28 PM) —It is with pleasure that I rise to speak this evening on this important legislation, the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2] and related bills. I follow a contribution which, I must say, I am very disappointed with from a member who, before the last election, talked up what an intellectual contribution he would make to this place. But instead he spent at least seven minutes at the start of his speech attacking the member for Hughes’s speech and then spent a large part of the rest of his speech talking about the effects of climate change in different parts of the world. He actually did not speak at any point about this legislation, the details of the legislation, its effect on the Australian people or the reasons we should support it. It is very disappointing, but I guess it is not so surprising that he has not been promoted, as he believed early on that he would be. The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. DGH Adams)—Order! I ask the honourable member to come to the bill. Mr BRIGGS —I will now move back to the content of the bill, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is the second opportunity we have had in several months to speak on this bill and I appreciate the fact that the minister responsible for the bill in this place, the Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change, is at the table. I hope for his sake that he does not have to sit through the whole debate from beginning to end, but it is very good that he is here this evening. It is an important bill for us to consider in detail and there are in this place rightly a range of views on the impact of this bill. I for one support the democratic right of people in this place to have a different perspective on this important legislation. I think the minister at the table has said that it is probably the biggest change to the country’s economic infrastructure in some time, at least since the introduction of the goods and services tax; therefore, it is important that we do have a full-ranging debate. Obviously, we have had two opportunities to have this debate in the last three months. That three-month timing is coincidental of course. I rise tonight to speak in support of the amendments to this bill that were described so eloquently this morning by the Leader of the Opposition. They are vast in their coverage and important in their impact. This bill is badly flawed and the government obviously recognise that to the degree that they are entering into negotiations with the opposition on appropriate amendments in an attempt to try to move it through the parliament. We have amendments which demonstrate that Labor’s CPRS can be cheaper and smarter and can protect more jobs. We have done the work. We have shown that their scheme is deeply flawed. Even the Greens agree with us on that. They voted against it in the Senate back in August and I think they have shown that they will vote against it again if it is not amended. The Rudd government’s current proposal, if implemented, would jeopardise thousands of Australian jobs. It would compromise the international competitiveness of our trade exposed industries. If accepted by the government, our amendments will prevent shutdowns in important industries and save tens of thousands of jobs in those industries. Key export industries, including coalmining, food processing, natural gas and aluminium, will be better protected, saving thousands of Australian jobs that are under threat from Labor’s scheme. The proposals will cushion the impact of power prices on small businesses and households, which are very much the core constituency of the Liberal Party. They always have been and they always will be. Small businesses and families are very much who we stand for, who we stand with and who we will protect at all times. We also include in our amendments voluntary measures which will give businesses and, importantly, farmers and community groups opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through their own initiative. We will advocate an intensity based cap-and-trade approach to the electricity sector, as this more than halves the initial increase in electricity prices to small businesses and households, reducing the economic cost of achieving emissions cuts. Again, I make the point that we have done the work through the modelling of Frontier Economics, a consultancy that the Labor Party attack today but have used in the past. As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, they have designed one more ETS than the Department of Climate Change. One of the key issues that we pursue in these amendments is the exclusion of agriculture, with offsets like forestry and internationally recognised soil carbon included in the scheme. This morning the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Flinders, the shadow spokesman on the environment, pointed out very clearly how this green carbon will work and become an important part of the mitigation attempts of this scheme. Voluntary action in energy efficiency will be recognised. Again, this is another important area in which we are negotiating with the government to make important changes to what is currently a flawed and inappropriate scheme. We believe that these realistic and achievable amendments will meet the objective of reducing Australia’s carbon emissions and at the same time remove the shadow of potential industry closures and large-scale job losses. The government must explain why it would reject these commonsense amendments, which will save Australian jobs, protect Australian small businesses from sharp power price rises and have the same environmental benefits by achieving the same reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. We also maintain that we should be waiting for the international conference in Copenhagen, which is now but weeks away. One of the reasons for the pursuit of this legislation so soon after it was initially rejected is of course the Prime Minister’s vanity, which requires that he take this scheme to the Copenhagen conference. That is a dangerous thing and a rushed decision based on the political interests of the Prime Minister rather than the economic and environmental interests of our country. So we very much stand in the corner of the Australian people to ensure that this bill and this scheme will operate effectively and will not just be pushed through this parliament to ensure that the Prime Minister of the day looks like he has achieved something great at Copenhagen. We are very much of the view that this should be delayed until after the Copenhagen conference, but of course the government are the government and, as they have moved this bill today and with votes in the next two sitting weeks of parliament both in this place and in the Senate, we have indicated that we will be part of those negotiations. We are doing so as I speak. I am sure the member for Groom is speaking regularly with the Minister for Climate Change in that respect. The member for Isaacs in his remarks made the point that this is a global issue and has global ramifications, and we could not agree more with that point. This is a global issue and we must be part of the global response. That is why the conference in Copenhagen in December is an important occasion for us to see what the world will do together to address this issue. We also know that a bill, the Waxman-Markey bill, is being debated before the US senate today and is likely to be finalised in some way in the near future. We do not know what will come out of that process. We know that there will be a result and we presume that the result will introduce some sort of cap and trade scheme in the United States. However, the Minerals Council make the point that, even if our amendments to this bill are adopted, our scheme will still be the toughest in the world, in particular compared to the EU, but also in comparison with what is before the US senate. Therefore it is important that we get our scheme right to ensure that we do not sacrifice this at the altar of the Prime Minister’s ego with a rushed decision just to prove that he was able to get a scheme through before the conference. We agree that Australia needs to be part of the solution. Those of us on this side of the House agree that we need to take reasonable action to address what are serious issues in the Australian community. We do not seek to say, to the same level as some on the other side, that climate change will destroy the earth in a short period of time. However, what we do say is that the evidence is there and it is substantial and it is prudent of us to take action, as Margaret Thatcher said, as an insurance policy. I support that view. This is a reasonable approach; it is something that we have previously said that we will do. However, it is a fair thing in this place that all sorts of views are outlined. That is the very nature of this place. In conclusion, the government is engaging in negotiations with the opposition and we are very pleased about that. We think that they should support our amendments as they make a lot of sense. They prove that you can have a cheaper and smarter ETS that protects more jobs. We think the government has been rushed in its decision making and it will have severe consequences for our economy. We have seen that with other decisions they have made in relation to the economy and we are seeing that with this bill as well. We hope that the government takes our amendments and negotiations seriously and that they stop playing politics on this important issue. We ask that they come to the table, make some appropriate changes and make this a better bill than it is today.adminTue, 27 Oct 2009 21:58:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:197http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Mayo/MayoEvents/tabid/74/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/195/Sky-News-AM-Agenda.aspx#Comments0http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=74&ModuleID=376&ArticleID=195http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=195&PortalID=0&TabID=74http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Mayo/MayoEvents/tabid/74/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/195/Sky-News-AM-Agenda.aspxSky News AM Agenda Part One: Download Here Part Two: Download HereadminTue, 27 Oct 2009 01:47:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:195http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Mayo/MayoEvents/tabid/74/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/194/Speech-to-the-House-SOCIAL-SECURITY-AND-OTHER-LEGISLATION-AMENDMENT-INCOME-SUPPORT-FOR-STUDENTS-BILL-2009-26-October-2009.aspx#Comments0http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=74&ModuleID=376&ArticleID=194http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=194&PortalID=0&TabID=74http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Mayo/MayoEvents/tabid/74/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/194/Speech-to-the-House-SOCIAL-SECURITY-AND-OTHER-LEGISLATION-AMENDMENT-INCOME-SUPPORT-FOR-STUDENTS-BILL-2009-26-October-2009.aspxSpeech to the House, SOCIAL SECURITY AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (INCOME SUPPORT FOR STUDENTS) BILL 2009, 26 October 2009 Mr BRIGGS (Mayo) (5:18 PM) —It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak this afternoon on the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Income Support for Students) Bill 2009 and particularly to support the amendments being proposed by the shadow minister for education, the member for Sturt. I follow the written speech delivered by the member for Dawson, who is one of the few Labor members from outside metropolitan areas of our country, and it is a shame he did not address the great inequity of this bill and its attack on regional students that live in his seat. Obviously he will need to go back to the hollow men who draft the speeches over there and, next time, get some of that inserted into the speech. It is important that we deal with the two major issues in this bill, as many members from our side of the parliament have so far in their contributions to this debate. The two most significant issues we deal with in this bill are the retrospective nature of the changes made—which we oppose and we seek to amend—and the changes to the structure of the youth allowance and the independent arrangements, which we think discriminate very much against those who come from regional and rural areas of Australia. They particularly discriminate against those who come from farming families and regional small business families, benefiting those people who live in inner city Labor seats. That is very much always the modus operandi of the Labor Party—to make changes that benefit the Labor Party constituency against those of us who sit on this side. The Labor party does not have many members in outer metropolitan and regional seats. They have representatives such as the member for Dawson who obviously are unable to articulate the issues well enough for the minister to understand. The youth allowance was introduced in 1998 by the previous Howard government as a means to replace what were then five or six different allowances. We recognised—through the Bradley review—that there were some issues about how the youth allowance was being accessed by different groups in the community. The shadow minister for education has articulated very well how we support some of the changes suggested in the Bradley review and proposed in the budget. However, we do not support two aspects of the change. The first one—and probably the most contentious, publicly, thus far—is the retrospective nature of the changes to the youth allowance. That was a particularly nasty aspect of this bill, which would have initially impacted on the 30,000-odd young Australians who were undertaking their gap year this year. The minister has since made some changes to that provision. She had a press conference a couple of months ago where she had a group of students around. She acted like she was listening to their concerns and made a slight change which benefited some students but not all. So in this bill we seek to make the additional change, to catch up, to ensure there is not a retrospective element to this bill. The second and more important issue, which is an ongoing issue about how the Youth Allowance will be structured, relates to the number of hours a young person will need to work to qualify for the independent youth allowance compared to the dependent youth allowance, as the government have changed the structure of the wage levels and so forth. This will particularly impact on regional areas such as in some parts of my electorate like Kangaroo Island, which is further from the city and has the water gap so you could not live at home and travel daily to a city university. You would need to up your life and move to Adelaide or, indeed, whichever capital city you wish to attend university. That has the kids at the Kangaroo Island school extraordinarily concerned. I saw them a couple of months ago. We had a meeting with year 12s and a lot of them had been planning on their gap year to raise funds to give them the opportunity to go to Adelaide, attend university and make a start to their career. Many of them hope to return to the island and undertake employment in the area that they had studied. The students are deeply worried about the changes the Deputy Prime Minister is seeking to make. Those changes very much funnel assistance to those that the Deputy Prime Minister likes in society as against those that she does not like, and that is the obnoxious bit of this bill. I am thankful to the Parliamentary Library as per usual in their Bills Digest for encapsulating what this change will do. It says: Under the current work participation requirements for independence, a person must have: worked full-time (at least 30 hours a week) for at least 18 months in the previous two years, or worked part-time (at least 15 hours a week) for at least two years since leaving school, or have been out of school for at least 18 months and earned at least 75 per cent of the maximum rate of pay under Wage Level A of the Australian Pay and Classification Scale (that is, $19 532 in 2009) in an 18 month period. Under the change announced in the budget all but the first criteria, ‘worked full-time (at least 30 hours a week) for at least 18 months in the previous two years’ will apply. It is, of course, extraordinarily difficult in regional areas to find that sort of work in that period to qualify for the allowance. It is going to make things very tough for young Australians in regional areas, particularly those from farming backgrounds and others as well. I have a constituent, Sarah Hemming who comes from Echunga, which is a beautiful part of my electorate, who has written to me about just how concerned and upset she is at the treatment being dished out by the Deputy Prime Minister. I forwarded this letter to the Deputy Prime Minister some weeks ago now and I am still eagerly awaiting a reply. I am sure it is on the way to my office as we speak. I will quote some of Sarah’s letter because I think it is very important to understand: Are you aware that the government recently has decided against increasing the earning threshold for youth allowance students. This is absurd. I work a 6 hour shift a week, which is 12 hours a fortnight at a wage of 19.40 for a Saturday. This amounts to $232.80 per fortnight in my independent earnings and the threshold for income per fortnight for Youth Allowance Students is $230 a fortnight. So for working this I am already over the income threshold and my payment is reduced. Sarah goes on and explains how difficult it is to live independently on those sorts of amounts. I have great sympathy for what she is saying about the changes being made. She is very clearly saying that the changes being made by this government impact more on regional students and regional people than on those who live in inner city, Labor held seats. What this Deputy Prime Minister will seek to do again on most occasions is to use the politics of envy, the politics of Medicare gold and the politics of the school hit list, focusing on who the government believe will benefit the most in their constituencies against those who live in areas that do not generally vote for the Australian Labor Party. This bill has elements which we will seek to amend. The Manager of Opposition Business, the shadow spokesman on education, will be seeking several amendments. They are amendments which will make the bill a better bill and will make the system a better system going forward. They are cost neutral amendments to ensure that the Deputy Prime Minister cannot allege that we are trying to spend more money. They make a lot of sense and they will reduce the heartache which exists at the moment in regional communities. As I said at the start, we are not opposed, per se, to changes to the Youth Allowance that have been suggested by this government, however we are opposed to the changes which particularly impact on regional kids. Again, I think the Bills Digest sums up exactly what the Deputy Prime Minister has sought to do in this legislation. On page 12, under the description of the measures, it says: However changes to the parental income test and the introduction of new scholarship payments will mean that many more dependent students qualify for a higher rate of assistance than they would have received under the current arrangements. It is a change in the bucket of money. Basically it is a change to how it is accessed at the moment by people in regional areas, who need some additional assistance, to those who largely live in lower-income areas in our major cities. What the Deputy Prime Minister does not understand is that living in regional centres makes university that much more difficult to access. I agree in part with what the member for Dawson said about regional universities. There has been an increased presence in regional universities in the last 20 years. In fact, when I grew up in a regional area 400 kilometres from the nearest major centre, we had the beginnings of some university education through the TAFE and, as it grew, through Latrobe University. However, inevitably for most kids in regional areas to get the skills required to go on and do whatever occupation they want to undertake, either in the city or in their regional communities, requires attendance at a city based university. The fact is that young people from regional areas who go away and study are more likely to return to their rural and regional areas to undertake the important jobs of trained professionals like doctors, teachers, accountants and so forth. It is therefore important for the very survival and health of regional communities that we make it as easy as possible for those young people to have the opportunity of an education, whether through city based or regional universities. Unfortunately this bill does the exact opposite—it changes the way that youth allowance is paid. We are seeking to amend the bill to make it a much fairer system. This issue has driven quite a deal of community outrage. I have had quite a bit of correspondence through my electorate office and I know other members further out in the state, the member for Barker and the member for Grey, have had quite a deal of correspondence on this issue. It is a policy mistake by the Deputy Prime Minister. We just hope that she is not too stubborn to recognise that she has made a significant error by trying to implement what would be better for the Labor Party than for regional kids and their opportunities going forward. I do not think the minister understands that the value of many farm are at such levels as to render those students ineligible although the available income is inadequate to support them. There is an old saying that farmers are asset rich but cash poor, particularly in the last few years of significant droughts. I understand that someone coming from Unley High School might not necessarily know what it is like for a kid from Murray Bridge, Mount Barker, Victor Harbor or Kangaroo Island. It is unfortunate that the Deputy Prime Minister does not understand the very nature of regional Australia and the challenges that we face. My seat is a mixed outer suburb-regional seat. It is a vast seat with large areas. My constituents are not as affected as those of many other members in this place; however, this is a bad policy change. The Deputy Prime Minister will have an opportunity to vote for appropriate changes to the retrospectivity of this bill. It is a disgraceful policy move in any parliament to apply a policy retrospectively. She has done a half backflip. She is halfway round the full backflip. We hope that the full backflip happens soon. She particularly needs to address how youth allowance is paid and how it is structured in order to address the concerns of so many young Australians, particularly those in regional areas. On that note, I conclude. The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. DS Vale)—I call the member for Lindsay.adminSun, 25 Oct 2009 21:15:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:194http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Mayo/MayoEvents/tabid/74/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/193/Speech-to-the-Main-Committee-PRIVATE-MEMBERS-BILL-Magill-Youth-Training-Centre.aspx#Comments0http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=74&ModuleID=376&ArticleID=193http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=193&PortalID=0&TabID=74http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Mayo/MayoEvents/tabid/74/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/193/Speech-to-the-Main-Committee-PRIVATE-MEMBERS-BILL-Magill-Youth-Training-Centre.aspxSpeech to the Main Committee, PRIVATE MEMBERS BILL, Magill Youth Training Centre Mr BRIGGS (Mayo) (8:17 PM) —I rise to speak on the motion that I moved last month in relation to the Magill Youth Training Centre in my electorate in South Australia. The centre has been the subject of much controversy in recent times with the state Labor government facing difficulties over the mismanagement of their budget over a long period of time during the whole eight years that they have been in government. That mismanagement that has occurred has been reflected by the fact that they had to make a decision to reverse a previous decision to build a new youth training centre in South Australia. This motion was moved in the same terms in the Senate by Senator Hanson-Young, the Greens senator from South Australia, and I know that the member for Mackellar would be surprised by that bipartisan arrangement. But it highlights the fact that such was the anger towards the state Labor government that we got together and moved that motion. She was successful in having it passed in the Senate to highlight just how badly the state Labor government have been managing their budget. In the week following my putting this motion on the Notice Paper the South Australian government buckled under all the pressure and backflipped. I thought of removing it, given that the issue had been dealt with. But I thought it still presented an important opportunity to talk about the effects of governments mismanaging budgets by spending too much money such as the impacts that has on the delivery of services to the community. This issue was starkly brought to my attention by a visit from Chris Varney, who is Australia’s youth ambassador to the United Nations. Mr Varney was successful in being one of the very few people to gain access to see the conditions inside the Magill Youth Training Centre. We all accept that young offenders need to be incarcerated from time to time. They should be if they commit offences. However, they should be incarcerated in a humane way—and we have just seen a motion before this House in relation to the mistreatment of young people. I think it goes beyond doubt that the treatment of the young people in this centre was and is still today not appropriate. This motion also sought to bring to public attention the role of the Minister for Early Childhood Education, Childcare and Youth whose job it is to represent young people of our country at a federal level. Her role is not just to represent youth in the positive circumstances as she often does, but more importantly, for those young people who are in difficult circumstances. This minister also has a unique relationship with the South Australian Labor government, in particular those who made the decision not to go ahead with the rebuilding of the Magill Training Centre. We thought it was important that the minister involve herself in trying to resolve this issue through her unique position. I must say it is disappointing that, after three months, I still have not received a reply to a letter I wrote bringing this issue to her attention, but I guess she is very busy. The centre was planned to be replaced as far back as 1999 when the then South Australian Liberal government announced it was to be rebuilt at Cavan. However, this was shelved when the Labor government took office in 2002. In 2006, the Rann government announced it would rebuild a suite of correctional facilities. However, due to the mismanagement of the state budget, the Rann government had to cut that promise in last year’s budget. They are using the tough-on-crime rhetoric that we often see with media Mike Rann, and his sidekick, the Treasurer. We know that that is all spin and no substance given that the gang of 49 seem to be running around South Australia at the moment doing what they like. The Magill Training Centre has been criticised by everyone; from the Greens in the Senate, to our side of politics, to their social inclusion adviser, Monsignor Cappo, who we all presume—given that the Treasurer says anyone who criticises this is soft on crime—is also included in that criticism. Pressure from Stephen Wade, a spokesman in the state Liberal party; John Gardner, who is the candidate for Morialta; several media outlets, including Matt and Dave; and the state Labor government’s polling reflected that they needed to do something about it and thus we saw the backflip. A week after this motion was moved, the Minister for Families and Communities in South Australia, Jennifer Rankine, said that if they built this it would damage the state’s AAA credit rating. That is quite an extraordinary announcement, that a $60 million one-off spend would actually damage the state’s AAA credit rating. It just highlights how this state Labor government’s waste and mismanagement over eight years has sent South Australia back to the bad old days of the State Bank. The worst thing is that we are seeing exactly the same thing in this national parliament today, with this Prime Minister. This government should be condemned for its waste and mismanagement. (Time expired)adminSun, 25 Oct 2009 21:14:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:193http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Mayo/MayoEvents/tabid/74/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/190/Estees-a-Marvellous-Milker-Courier-21-October-2009.aspx#Comments0http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=74&ModuleID=376&ArticleID=190http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=190&PortalID=0&TabID=74http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Mayo/MayoEvents/tabid/74/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/190/Estees-a-Marvellous-Milker-Courier-21-October-2009.aspxDownload Here: LinkClick.aspxadminTue, 20 Oct 2009 23:03:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:190http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Mayo/MayoEvents/tabid/74/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/192/Speech-to-the-House-LONG-SERVICE-LEAVE-LEGISLATION-AMENDMENT-TELSTRA-BILL-2009-21-October-2009.aspx#Comments0http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=74&ModuleID=376&ArticleID=192http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=192&PortalID=0&TabID=74http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Mayo/MayoEvents/tabid/74/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/192/Speech-to-the-House-LONG-SERVICE-LEAVE-LEGISLATION-AMENDMENT-TELSTRA-BILL-2009-21-October-2009.aspxSpeech to the House, LONG SERVICE LEAVE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (TELSTRA) BILL 2009, 21 October 2009 Mr BRIGGS (Mayo) (10:29 AM) —It is a great honour to follow the member for Dobell, who is on his long march to the front bench. He is only a couple of steps away. After that wonderful contribution of light and grace, I am sure he will be sitting there in the not too distant future with the member for Blaxland, who is at the table and who recently was promoted—rightfully too, I would have thought—to a higher position within the Labor Party and is on his march as well. It is a great honour to speak in this debate. I will not, however, go down the same road of vicious personal attacks that the member for Dobell unfortunately felt he had to resort to instead of concentrating on the debate—that does disappoint me. He knows the subject of the bill so well and it is so close to his heart. He spent many years working as a union official before he entered this place. I congratulate him and the other 80-odd per cent of Labor members of parliament who have followed that path. On the Long Service Leave Legislation Amendment (Telstra) Bill 2009, I do have some familiarity with this issue. In 2006, the then government moved to ensure that Telstra workers were covered for their long service leave entitlements. The sale of Telstra meant that the workers were potentially going to fall out of the Commonwealth scheme, because they were not covered by the terms, and fall back to inconsistent state conditions. As the member for Dobell rightly pointed out in his history lesson on long service leave, different states have different levels of long service leave entitlement, which would have created massive confusion for Telstra workers, leaving some worse off and some better off. From memory, the balance was that most would have been better off but some would have missed out. So the then Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations moved to ensure that that situation was remedied. The then shadow minister for workplace relations, the member for Perth—who is now the Minister for Foreign Affairs—rose in this place and supported our moves at that time. It is with that same sense of bipartisanship that we stand today and support the government’s move to extend these provisions. It does raise a question, though, about what happens when the government’s plan to split Telstra up comes into being. What happens to the employees? I am sure the government are thinking at this time about what impact that will have on employees. That is the background to the issue. Telstra is, of course, a company that over a long period has had many vicious and nasty industrial disputes. Many famous industrial disputes have originated in Telstra—or Telecom, as it was, when it was a government instrumentality. Today we see that tradition continuing. A report in the Weekend Australian is headed ‘Telstra unions set to strike’ and states: THE five-month ceasefire between Telstra and its main union is on the verge of collapse. This is because what had been a period of industrial harmony in Telstra has come to an end due to the changes made by the government with its Fair Work Act and particularly the good faith bargaining provisions, which will see this massive increase in industrial disputes. The Reserve Bank governor has said already that, if you have this massive increase in industrial disputes, you will see pressure being put on interest rates. That will unfortunately be the result of the government’s changes. We are seeing that already with big companies like Telstra at war with their unions because of the rights in the new act for third parties to intervene, as used to be the case. It is an issue which is very important for the parliament to consider. It was brought to my attention by Workplace Express, which is a fantastic service dealing with industrial relations news, that the Australian Industry Group, a very firm supporter of the government, has put out a ‘First 100 days’ Fair Work Act bargaining provisions booklet, which talks about the changes brought about by the Fair Work Act and what it has done to the industrial landscape around the country. The report is actually quite critical of the new IR regime, which is surprising given the position of AiG in recent years. According to the Workplace Express report, the booklet says: … the key principles that have emerged include that parties have the right to bargain hard and that industrial action cannot be taken prematurely. In the booklet, the AiG says that since the 1 July introduction of the new bargaining laws the industrial climate had undoubtedly changed, with unions pursuing new claims with some vigour. This highlights the problem that we are starting to see. We have seen it with the stuff-up on the award modernisation. We have seen it with the Fair Work Act going too far and giving too much power to third parties to intervene, which will cause a massive spike in industrial disputes. That will be terrible for the Western Australian resource sector, where we are already seeing massive increases in these types of disputes. We have seen massive increases in the number of unfair dismissals. An article in yesterday’s Financial Review highlighted very strongly the changes in attitudes to unfair dismissal since the act was passed, which will of course impact enormously on small business. In summing up, this is a bill which I support. I have had something to do with it in the past. It gives Telstra employees a lot of certainty. It does highlight the inconsistency of long service leave arrangements around the country, which is an issue I believe the government is turning its mind to. One measure that the government may be considering and which I think would be a massive mistake, particularly for long service leave, is a portable employee entitlements scheme. That would be a huge new tax for small business. It has been part of the Labor Party platform in the past; we will have to wait and see whether we see it in the future.adminTue, 20 Oct 2009 23:01:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:192http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Mayo/MayoEvents/tabid/74/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/191/Speech-to-the-House-TELECOMMUNICATIONS-LEGISLATION-AMENDMENT-COMPETITION-AND-CONSUMER-SAFEGUARDS-BILL-2009-21-October-2009.aspx#Comments0http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=74&ModuleID=376&ArticleID=191http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=191&PortalID=0&TabID=74http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Mayo/MayoEvents/tabid/74/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/191/Speech-to-the-House-TELECOMMUNICATIONS-LEGISLATION-AMENDMENT-COMPETITION-AND-CONSUMER-SAFEGUARDS-BILL-2009-21-October-2009.aspxSpeech to the House, TELECOMMUNICATIONS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (COMPETITION AND CONSUMER SAFEGUARDS) BILL 2009, 21 October 2009 Mr BRIGGS (Mayo) (6:24 PM) —It is a great honour to follow the member for Lindsay. I respect his authority on these subjects and I know that, in the past, he has focused very much on these issues. He has a great understanding and depth of knowledge about this and it is a great opportunity to follow him in this debate. I appreciate the fact that he has put his point of view to the parliament and it is a point of view that I largely disagree with. I support very much the second reading amendment, moved to put off the debate of the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2009 until we have the results of the implementation study into the NBN mark 2. I think it is mark 2 we are at. I am sure there will be mark 3, 4, 5 and maybe 6 to come, but it would make a lot of sense to wait for that study to be done, given the government has put a significant amount of effort into the study. It is a confused position we are in because we heard again today in question time that the whole concept of a business plan, for the ‘small’ figure of $42 billion, has not yet been put together, which is quite extraordinary I would have thought. The member at the table, Mr Gray, in his previous role in a very large multinational company would not have been able to get away with that. Nonetheless, we will continue. What this is about is the government’s complete and utter inability to get Telstra to play ball with them on their National Broadband Network. That is exactly what this bill is about. It is the sword over the neck of Telstra by using the availability of the next-generation spectrum, which Telstra will be very keen to participate in the auction of when this minister turns off the analog signal for TVs in a couple of years time. We know from international examples that the sale of the spectrum will yield extraordinary amounts of money. There is a very good reason for that. It is because it is in a very high quality spectrum and it will allow Telstra, if Telstra are successful in bidding for it—you would think they would be very keen to at least get part of that—to expand their very capable Next G network, which is already delivering very good speeds. I am sure many members in this place who use their Blackberries around the country—I am sure most now have Blackberries—are taken by just how quick the speeds are. There is a good reason for that—it is because Telstra have invested a lot of money in their Next G network, which delivers very good service. That is the truth of it. I know my electorate still has black spots or occasional dropouts because of the topography of the Adelaide Hills and the Fleurieu Peninsula, but the speed of delivery is actually very good. Telstra will want access to the additional spectrum because it will allow them to ramp up those services, which questions the very need for the fixed line service that the government is running around bragging about, saying how important it will be. My electorate of Mayo—which is 20 kilometres in parts and 30 kilometres in other parts stretching far out from the city of Adelaide, which is a lot closer to a major city than some of the members’ electorates in this place—will not get this NBN under any circumstances. I know Senator Minchin, our opposition spokesman on this, and who is doing a very good job, has highlighted the point that towns with a population under 1,000 people will miss out on the NBN and will be given a second-rate service. I contest that it will be lot more than that. I contest that all of my electorate will miss out on this because it will just not be economically viable, and we have not seen any evidence to the contrary thus far. The reason we are debating this bill today is that the government made a promise before the last election that it could never keep. It made a promise because it fitted in with the political opportunity at the time, which was to expose the previous government as being old and out of touch compared to the newfangled, technological age Prime Minister being put forward in the Kevin 07 campaign. It was a very clever political campaign, and I suspect the member at the table had a bit to do with thinking about how it was run and won. All credit to them; it was a very good campaign. This issue fitted in with it perfectly because it was a future-looking infrastructure issue. But the truth is there was no detail put into the work behind it. It was a campaign promise made with the figure of $4.7 billion plucked from the air: ‘This sounds like a good idea: 98 per cent of the country for 12 megs per second.’ That was not then possible to implement post the election. They had to seriously sit down and work out what they were going to. Rather than say, ‘Actually, we might have made a mistake here; we shouldn’t have got rid of the coalition’s OPEL plan to cover the underserviced areas’—which, had they continued with it, would have meant that today we would have faster broadband in my electorate and in many regional electorates throughout Australia—they cut that. They needed the money and cut that plan. Instead they announced this National Broadband Network mark 2. We heard the Minister for Finance and Deregulation today talking about just how important a superfast internet was and so forth. The reason that we have this bill is because Telstra did not want to cooperate with this whole idea, and if you do not have Telstra playing ball on this issue you do not have a plan. That is the truth of it, because Telstra have the network, of course; they have the asset; they have the means to deliver it. So the government had to do something. They found that Telstra was strangely not willing to be part of a $42 billion plan for which there is no business case, which no-one knows how to do and which does not make a lot of sense. What they have done is ask, ‘What would be the most attractive thing that Telstra would be looking for into the future?’ and then threaten it through a piece of legislation. It is an extraordinary attack on a business in our country. For a government to use the power of this place to attack a private company is extraordinary. Telstra is now actually a private company, of course. The previous government sold Telstra. Those opposite, who are supposedly completely committed to microeconomic reform, as we heard from the member for Lindsay, opposed that every step of the way—as they did pretty much every piece of legislation in the previous 11½ years. So you have a private company that is being attacked through legislative means by a government. You have a very large group of shareholders who will lose value with no compensation—not that we know of at this point in time; I suspect that in the end they will get very good compensation. So who loses in the end? The taxpayer. The reason that Telstra is as integrated as it is is because the previous Labor government, with the communications minister, the Hon. Kim Beazley, the new Ambassador to the United States of America, made the decision to have Telstra as one entity. That is why the company is the size that it is today. It was the next government, the Howard government, that sold Telstra as it was. It sold Telstra as an integrated company, including the network asset and the retail arm. I believe that if we could again have our time in the early 1990s we would separate Telstra from its network and its retail operations. We should have done so. We made a mistake in the early part of the 1990s. But the problem with these things is that you cannot unscramble the egg, because somebody will get hurt. The member for Lindsay claimed that all we are talking about here are the shareholders. I do not agree with that at all. The taxpayer will carry the can on this, because there will be a huge compensation bill for the government to pay on this. Our Constitution protects private companies at least to that extent. I am not sure that we can even change that here. So the taxpayer will lose on this, and all because this minister has absolutely failed to come up with a decent broadband plan. This is slogans above reality. What we saw was a very clever political campaign run against the previous government. That has now run into the reality of the brick wall of government, where they cannot do what they said that they wanted to do. Who will pay? Sure, the shareholders of Telstra will pay. But it will be the taxpayers who will pay. They will be the people who carry the can on this. That is the great tragedy in what the government is trying to do here. It is absolutely outrageous that in our free and open democratic country the government would use the parliament to threaten, bully and legislate a company into submission. No-one is saying at all that our regulations as to the telecommunications industry are perfect. I would agree. I went through a little bit of this in the last 12 months of the previous government, and it is a minefield. The role of the ACCC is a very difficult one and it has been challenged over a long period of time. Telstra have not helped themselves. They are an easy company to attack and to use as a whipping boy. They do things like creating the recent $2.20 fee. That was, frankly, a dumb decision for a company like Telstra to make. They encourage community mirth. However, that is not to say that we should in this place then legislate them out of existence or legislate them so that they behave in the way that this government wants them to behave. You simply should not do that. It is a dangerous path, in my view, that we are going down in doing this. This government will regret the decisions of this minister. This minister has fundamentally failed to recognise the realities of what he is trying to do with this piece of legislation. I support very much the shadow minister’s approach to this issue. The government would be very wise to wait for its implementation study—or its scoping studies—to be finalised, which I understand will be early next year. It is not that long a time to wait. What they are hoping for, I suspect, is for this legislation to not have to be used. What they are actually hoping for is for Telstra to come to them on bended knee saying: ‘We’re sorry. We know we’ve misbehaved. We’ll be better in the future and we’ll play ball.’ To that extent, the new management team seems to have a more reasonable approach to public policy than the previous management team; that is for sure. It was interesting to see the member for Lindsay defending a former government relations officer at Telstra previously. I am not sure that his constituents would agree with him on that. I also noticed that the member for Lindsay talked about different advisers’ or analysts’ recommendations about what will happen with the Telstra share price. He quoted one in particular, but he did not fully go through what exactly they had said. They also said that the NBN cannot be delivered until 2025. I am not sure that the member for Lindsay got the full briefing note on that one. I also noticed—if we are going to talk about people’s views on this in the national newspapers—that in the Australian Financial Review on 14 October there was an article which said: Investors Mutual is an Australian equities specialist that has more than $3 billion in funds under management for a range of clients across the country. It has a conservative investment style with a long-term focus and aims to deliver consistent returns for its clients. We are strongly of the view that the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment Bill 2009 is not in the best interests of Australia’s population of 21 million and is certainly not in the best interests of Telstra’s 1.4 million shareholders. That is one. Another view is from Peter Swan, who is an academic at the University of New South Wales. The Labor Party used to like academics and what they had to say. He was a little stronger with his language in the Australian newspaper on 16 September, where he wrote an opinion piece. The headline was ‘Rudd playing Ned Kelly with Telstra,’ and he said: Shareholders will be the biggest losers from the government’s unconstitutional moves against the telco. He compared the government’s behaviour—they were his words, not mine—to Latin American dictatorships and an Asian country which we have a very strong trading relationship with. There are a range of views on this, as there always are on investment decisions and so forth, so I think the member for Lindsay needs to be a little careful in relying on just a couple. The inescapable truth is that the government has not come to grips, at this point in time, with just how much money this will cost them. If they force Telstra to structurally separate there will be a massive compensation claim—and all because of their flawed NBN mark II. So we think they need to go back to the drawing board on this. We think this approach of using this place to try to belt Telstra into submission is wrong. We think there is a better way to go about broadbanding this country. If that is what it is about then there is a better way to go about it. The government’s approach in this place is to accuse the opposition of being laggards on the issue of broadband or of not understanding the speed, the cost, the commitment and the need for it in Australia. They compare us to countries like the Slovak Republic, which I think is about 79,000 square kilometres in size. My electorate is about 9,500 square kilometres, so I am not sure we are actually comparing apples with apples in that respect—to use that much overused metaphor. If you look at countries like the United States and Canada you find that Australia actually compares reasonably well. And you have to compare us with countries like those, you see, because of the tyranny of distance. It is the great challenge of Australia. You cannot have the same system across Australia. You cannot have a fibre network that services all of Australia. It is just not economical; it is just not possible. You need a range of technologies, and that is what we have always argued. There are places—I said this last time we talked about broadband in this place and a couple of interesting emails were posted—in Australia, many of them in capital cities, where you can get the best speeds available today. There are not enough of those places. Sure, we need some more investment, but there will investment because the companies will be attracted. That is the very nature of the market. In the big cities that will not be a problem. The issue is, of course, in the under-serviced areas like my electorate and many electorates like mine around the country—the outer metro and regional electorates, like that of the member of Mallee. The member for Mallee represents that great township of Mildura, which has always had challenges. When I was growing up there, there were two TV stations. Those are the places where government needs to invest to ensure that those citizens keep up with reasonable speeds at reasonable costs. That is where the focus for broadband in Australia should be. Having a large integrated company actually helps with that. It helps ensure that you can service under-serviced areas through funding black-spot types of programs or assisting with the funding of technologies which help keep those places comparable with their city cousins. So I think there is a mistake in the way that the government is using this as a political bludgeoning tool instead of recognising the policy reality that is broadband in Australia. As I said at the start, the developing speed of the 3G network that Telstra, Optus and others are implementing is clearly part of the answer into the future. It will be more attractive for people to use wireless technology at reliable and fast speeds, and that all relies on that spectrum being available for the companies to use. That is where this legislation is most vicious—it uses what is an attractive and necessary technology for the future as the gun at the head of parliament to force a policy outcome that this government wants for political reasons. They talked themselves into a problem with their promise originally—before the last election. It was a mistake. It was very clever politically but it was never possible policy-wise. It was a five-page document, from memory. At least there was a document in that respect. On this policy there is not even a business plan. There is $42 billion, with the taxpayer footing the bill. Those opposite allege that our interests here are with the shareholders only. That is simply not true. Sure, we are representing over one million shareholders, including people in my electorate who are very worked up about this, but we are actually representing the best interests of the Australian taxpayer and the best interests of the Australian consumer when it comes to broadband, because the government is wrong-headed on this issue. They are going down the wrong path. They are using the parliament in an inappropriate fashion. It is a dangerous step for us to take. I oppose the decision of this government and I support very much our amendments on this bill.adminTue, 20 Oct 2009 22:59:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:191http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Mayo/MayoEvents/tabid/74/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/189/Point-Sturt-Pipeline-At-Long-Last.aspx#Comments0http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=74&ModuleID=376&ArticleID=189http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=189&PortalID=0&TabID=74http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Mayo/MayoEvents/tabid/74/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/189/Point-Sturt-Pipeline-At-Long-Last.aspxPOINT STURT PIPELINE: AT LONG LAST! I welcome the Federal Government’s announcement that the water security of the Point Sturt community will finally be funded.   Along with the Shadow Minister for Water, the Hon. Greg Hunt MP, I have continually called on the Rudd Government to provide urgent assistance to the residents of Point Sturt by funding a spur pipeline from the existing Milang-Clayton pipeline.    Faced with severe water shortages, residents on the Point Sturt Peninsula have lived in uncertainty with pleads to the Rann State Government for the construction of a pipeline falling on deaf ears.   I am therefore extremely pleased to learn that after months of lobbying, the Federal Government has finally recognised the plight of local residents and has announced it will provide mains water to the region.   After months of speculation and confusion however, the besieged residents of Hindmarsh Island and Point Sturt deserved better. Residents have already sustained enormous loss and this assistance should have been received months earlier.   I will continue to advocate on the issue to ensure the pipeline is completed urgently and that a well-deserved outcome for the community is received.  adminWed, 14 Oct 2009 05:16:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:189http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Mayo/MayoEvents/tabid/74/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/188/Talking-Federal-Politics-on-Skynews-Agenda.aspx#Comments0http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=74&ModuleID=376&ArticleID=188http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=188&PortalID=0&TabID=74http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Mayo/MayoEvents/tabid/74/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/188/Talking-Federal-Politics-on-Skynews-Agenda.aspxPart 1 - Download Here Part 2 - Download Here Part 3 - Download HereadminTue, 13 Oct 2009 03:52:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:188http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Mayo/MayoEvents/tabid/74/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/187/Speaking-on-Triple-Js-the-Hack-Program.aspx#Comments0http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=74&ModuleID=376&ArticleID=187http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=187&PortalID=0&TabID=74http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Mayo/MayoEvents/tabid/74/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/187/Speaking-on-Triple-Js-the-Hack-Program.aspxDownload Here: LinkClick.aspxadminThu, 08 Oct 2009 04:31:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:187http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Mayo/MayoEvents/tabid/74/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/186/Entrepreneurial-Spirit-Beats-Government-Every-Time.aspx#Comments0http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=74&ModuleID=376&ArticleID=186http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=186&PortalID=0&TabID=74http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Mayo/MayoEvents/tabid/74/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/186/Entrepreneurial-Spirit-Beats-Government-Every-Time.aspxEntrepreneurial Spirit Beats Government Every Time Last week I was fortunate to be invited to be part of the launch of a new business on Kangaroo Island, which is in my electorate. Kangaroo Island is one of the most beautiful parts of Australia, it is frontier country.  But the very thing that makes it so beautiful for the hundreds of thousands of tourists is the same thing that makes it so challenging for its residents and its economy. Kangaroo Island is a giant land mass, some 4,500 square kilometres taking about two hours to drive from one end to another.  It is home to about 4,000 islanders and is most famously known for its natural tourism.  Some 60 per cent of international visitors to South Australia are there to visit KI. But while tourism is its most publicly acknowledged industry, agriculture has always been the mainstay of the island economy consisting of mainly cropping and aquaculture.  But the problem has always been that the 14 kilometre water gap has made the cost of doing business so much more than mainland competitors, making it very difficult to do business and remain competitive. Enter Duncan MacGillivray, a South Australian business legend of ‘Two Dogs’ alcoholic lemonade fame.  Duncan was approached by a group of Kangaroo Island grain growers last year who had a fledgling relationship with a Japanese buying group who sought ‘GM Free’ products.  Given the fact that KI is an island, it can very confidently say that it is ‘GM Free’, for once turning the water gap into an opportunity, not a problem. The very capable farmers on KI knew that had an opportunity, they just didn’t necessarily have the know-how to get the best from the deal.  Then they met with Duncan. With the skill and cunning that makes our country so special, he developed ‘KI Pure Grain’ and began to make arrangements with the buyers in Japan.  He worked with the government authorities to get the best deal on the infrastructure and he managed the process of accessing the funds from the bank, a hurdle many other small businesses have failed in recent times.  KI Pure Grain has worked out transport deals with local transport companies and with the ferry company Sealink which has put on an additional ferry to cart the special containers.  It has given these KI farmers the scale they didn’t have previously meaning their costs are reduced.  So the venture has begun and with this year looking like being a boom year for the crops on the Island, the tea leaves look good.  Now this all sounds terribly easy but really we know it’s not.  It takes courage, faith and ingenuity.  But most importantly it highlights that great Australian entrepreneurial spirit that makes our country the undoubted success story it is today.  Where people like Duncan MacGillivray and the grain farmers of KI are encouraged to take a chance in search of a better tomorrow. I tell this story because to me is shows why governments place is never at the centre of the economy.  The Government could never have delivered this opportunity.  It can be an enabler.  For instance as part of this deal the Trade Commission in Japan worked very successfully to ensure that the mutual understanding of the deal was delivered. This deal highlights the stark difference between the reality of our economy and that of Kevin Rudd’s new economic doctrine. Kevin Rudd has been arguing since the beginning of the global economic downturn that governments know best and should remain at the centre of the economy. He argues that a bunch of bureaucrats know how to spend other people’s money better than they do. This is simply wrong. Governments that spend borrowed money on questionable projects are bound to fail our economy and the people they represent. The government’s role is to facilitate opportunities for the Duncan MacGillivray’s of our country to create wealth, jobs and opportunities for now and the future. The Rudd approach is bound to fail not just now but for future generations. Create the circumstances for the entrepreneur to shine and our future will be brighter. adminThu, 08 Oct 2009 02:28:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:186http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Mayo/MayoEvents/tabid/74/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/185/Sky-News-Agenda-with-Kieran-Gilbert.aspx#Comments0http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=74&ModuleID=376&ArticleID=185http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=185&PortalID=0&TabID=74http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Mayo/MayoEvents/tabid/74/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/185/Sky-News-Agenda-with-Kieran-Gilbert.aspxPart One - Download Here: LinkClick.aspx Part Two - Download Here: LinkClick.aspxadminTue, 06 Oct 2009 23:28:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:185