http://jamiebriggs.com.auRSS feeds for Jamie Briggs MP60http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Mayo/MayoEvents/tabid/74/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/20/Five-AA-Media-Interview-Jamie-comments-on-the-launch-of-the-Rudd-Governments-Emissions-Trading-Scheme.aspx#Comments0http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=74&ModuleID=376&ArticleID=20http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=20&PortalID=0&TabID=74http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Mayo/MayoEvents/tabid/74/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/20/Five-AA-Media-Interview-Jamie-comments-on-the-launch-of-the-Rudd-Governments-Emissions-Trading-Scheme.aspx adminWed, 17 Dec 2008 04:47:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:20http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Mayo/MayoEvents/tabid/74/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/22/A-Current-Affair-story-on-the-plight-of-the-Lower-Lakes.aspx#Comments0http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=74&ModuleID=376&ArticleID=22http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=22&PortalID=0&TabID=74http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Mayo/MayoEvents/tabid/74/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/22/A-Current-Affair-story-on-the-plight-of-the-Lower-Lakes.aspxwww.adelaideaca.com.au/story_details.phpadminFri, 12 Dec 2008 05:04:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:22http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Mayo/MayoEvents/tabid/74/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/19/Jamie-lobbies-the-Environment-Minister.aspx#Comments0http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=74&ModuleID=376&ArticleID=19http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=19&PortalID=0&TabID=74http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Mayo/MayoEvents/tabid/74/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/19/Jamie-lobbies-the-Environment-Minister.aspxThe Hon Peter Garrett MP Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Arts Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600       Dear Minister,   I refer to the Coorong and Lakes Alexandrina and Albert emergency management response released on 28 November 2008 with a deadline for comment of 12 December 2008.   It seems to me that this is a momentous once in a century decision and allowing just ten working days for those interested to respond makes it extremely difficult for you and your department to gain any meaningful input.   On Wednesday this week I toured the Lower Lakes by boat and was amazed by the resurgence of national and state listed flora and fauna species in the area following moderate rains in August. I urge you to do the same.   Australia is enduring a once in 100 year drought but it will rain again and we should not underestimate the capacity of the lakes to regenerate.   Flooding sea water into the lakes would be a short sighted and non reversible option that will destroy the ecology of the area and has little or no community support. As Henry Jones a local fisherman describes, it is the atomic option.   In addition to this, the justification for flooding the Lower Lakes with sea water has been to avoid exposure of acid sulphate soils, there appears evidence that the lakes are finding a natural solution to this problem.   A rushed decision would be the worst possible outcome for our country, at the very least I urge you to conduct a full environmental impact study.       I respectfully request you consider leaving the Lower Lakes as nature intended, a fresh water environment.   Yours Sincerely   Jamie Briggs MP   cc. The Hon Malcolm Turnbull MP       The Hon Greg Hunt MP           adminFri, 12 Dec 2008 04:41:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:19http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Mayo/MayoEvents/tabid/74/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/15/Tour-Down-Under-2009-18th25th-January.aspx#Comments0http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=74&ModuleID=376&ArticleID=15http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=15&PortalID=0&TabID=74http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Mayo/MayoEvents/tabid/74/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/15/Tour-Down-Under-2009-18th25th-January.aspxThe 2009 Tour Down Under is shaping up as one of the biggest sporting events ever held in the state. The decision by former Tour de France champion Lance Armstrong to use the Tour Down Under to start his return to racing has guaranteed worldwide coverage for the event. Starting on January the 18th, the race will travel through the hills region for four out of the six days, passing through many towns including Hahndorf, Stirling and Victor Harbor. Tour Dates: Sunday 18 January Down Under Classic Rymill Park, Adelaide Start Time, 7pm Tuesday 20 January Stage One Norwood to Mawson Lakes Start Time, 11am Wednesday 21 January Stage Two Hahndorf to Stirling Start Time, 11am Thursday 22 January Stage Three Unley to Victor Harbor Start Time, 11am Friday 23 January Stage Four Burnside Village to Angaston Start Time, 11am Saturday 24 January Stage Five Snapper Point to Willunga Start Time, 11am Sunday 25 January Stage Six Adelaide City Council Circuit Start Time, 1.00pm - subject to change depending on live television adminThu, 11 Dec 2008 01:40:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:15http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Mayo/MayoEvents/tabid/74/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/14/Mayo-Community-News-November-2008-Edition.aspx#Comments0http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=74&ModuleID=376&ArticleID=14http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=14&PortalID=0&TabID=74http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Mayo/MayoEvents/tabid/74/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/14/Mayo-Community-News-November-2008-Edition.aspx adminThu, 11 Dec 2008 00:25:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:14http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Mayo/MayoEvents/tabid/74/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/4/5400-to-Preserve-Wartime-Heritage.aspx#Comments0http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=74&ModuleID=376&ArticleID=4http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=4&PortalID=0&TabID=74http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Mayo/MayoEvents/tabid/74/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/4/5400-to-Preserve-Wartime-Heritage.aspxI am pleased to advise that the Port Elliot Sub-branch of the Returned & Services League of Australia and the Parndana Campus of Kangaroo Island Community Education have been granted funding under the Saluting Their Service program. An initiative of the Australian Government, Saluting Their Service honours Australia’s Servicemen and women and aims to promote appreciation of their role in shaping our great nation. The Port Elliot Returned and Services League has received $3000 to upgrade the Port Elliot World War I and II War Memorial and the Parndana Campus will use the grant to help students interview soldier settlers from Kangaroo Island and to learn about their experiences. I congratulate both of these organisations on their successful applications. To find out more about this program and the application process, please visit www.dva.gov.au/commemorations/activities or call my office on 08 8398 5566.adminTue, 09 Dec 2008 06:08:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:4http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Mayo/MayoEvents/tabid/74/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/3/Historic-Race-Lives-On.aspx#Comments0http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=74&ModuleID=376&ArticleID=3http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=3&PortalID=0&TabID=74http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Mayo/MayoEvents/tabid/74/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/3/Historic-Race-Lives-On.aspxWhen it comes to Motor Racing, Lobethal sure knows how to rip up the streets! The Lobethal Grand Carnival was held on the 11th and 12th of October and was a huge success. Over 12,000 people turned out to celebrate motor racing and to bring the sport back to the streets of Lobethal. 60 years after the town’s last race in 1948, spectators were treated to a re-enactment of the original race with its challenging circuit, classic cars and of course high speeds. Well done to all the volunteers, crew and residents of Lobethal for organising such a memorable and historical event.adminTue, 09 Dec 2008 06:06:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:3http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Mayo/MayoEvents/tabid/74/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/2/Local-Sporting-Grants.aspx#Comments0http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=74&ModuleID=376&ArticleID=2http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=2&PortalID=0&TabID=74http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Mayo/MayoEvents/tabid/74/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/2/Local-Sporting-Grants.aspxYoung sports men and woman throughout the electorate of Mayo are now eligible to apply for sporting grants of up to $3,000 under the Federal Government’s Local Sporting Champions Program. Under the initiative, successful individual applicants will receive $500 and successful team applicants will receive $3,000 to contribute towards the cost of travel, accommodation, uniforms or equipment when competing in a nominated sporting competition. The program is available for young people between 12 and 18 years of age, travelling more than 250 kilometres, return, to participate in a national sporting organisation endorsed state or national sporting competition, or national school sport competition. As part of this programme I have the responsibility of selecting two teams and 13 individuals to receive the grants. Applications can be made on line at www.ausport.gov.au/champions. I encourage all sporting groups that meet the selection criteria to apply for these grants. Further information is available from the electorate office in Mount Barker.adminTue, 09 Dec 2008 06:04:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:2http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Mayo/MayoEvents/tabid/74/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1/The-Water-Crisis.aspx#Comments0http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=74&ModuleID=376&ArticleID=1http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1&PortalID=0&TabID=74http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Mayo/MayoEvents/tabid/74/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1/The-Water-Crisis.aspxOn Friday 7 November, the Murray Darling Basin Commission predicted that we are in for a long hot summer with below average rainfall, dealing yet another blow to the people of the Lower Lakes and Coorong. I have called on Prime Minister Rudd to immediately release at least 30 gigalitres of water to save the Lower Lakes and Coorong as recommended in the recent Senate report, failure to do so will have a devastating affect on the communities in the area. The time for talking, reviews and inquiries are over, urgent action needs to be taken now. The Bureau of Meteorology says there is no immediate prospect of recovery for the region following poor spring rains. Today’s reports highlight the urgent need for water infrastructure projects to be fast tracked, covering channels, piping water and lining dams are all practical ways to save water. I call on Senator Penny Wong to immediately release infrastructure funds to help our farmers. In just two weeks time the Rudd Government will have been in power 12 months, elected on a promise to end the blame game and fix our river systems. The people of the Lower Lakes and Coorong have good reason to feel let down by this continuing indifference to their plight. A copy of the latest MDBC drought update is available at www.mdbc.gov.auadminTue, 09 Dec 2008 05:53:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Mayo/MayoEvents/tabid/74/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/23/Question-to-the-Deputy-Prime-Minister-QUESTIONS-WITHOUT-NOTICE-MURRAYDARLING-RIVER-SYSTEM-04-December-2008.aspx#Comments0http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=74&ModuleID=376&ArticleID=23http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=23&PortalID=0&TabID=74http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Mayo/MayoEvents/tabid/74/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/23/Question-to-the-Deputy-Prime-Minister-QUESTIONS-WITHOUT-NOTICE-MURRAYDARLING-RIVER-SYSTEM-04-December-2008.aspx  QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE - Murray-Darling River System Mr BRIGGS (Mayo) (3:07 PM) —My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. I refer the Acting Prime Minister to the letter I am holding from the Alexandrina Council, which covers the Lower Lakes that are in my electorate, delivered to the Prime Minister yesterday and calling for the government to deliver an extra 60 billion litres of water to save the Lower Lakes. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Mayo has the call. I am listening to his question. Mr BRIGGS —I also refer the Acting Prime Minister to the government’s decision giving the green light to the Victorian government to take an additional 75 billion litres of water from the Murray-Darling Basin for the north-south pipeline. Will the Acting Prime Minister now take decisive action to stop the pipeline and keep the 75 billion litres within the Murray-Darling Basin to help save the Lower Lakes? Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER —Order! The question has been asked. The Acting Prime Minister has the call. Ms GILLARD (Lalor) (Acting Prime Minister) —In answer to the member for Mayo’s question can I say, firstly, when he was working assisting with drafting Work Choices legislation, which enabled the rip-off of workers at risk in the Australian economy and enabled them to lose their penalty rates and overtime without compensation— Opposition members interjecting— Ms GILLARD —It is a simple fact and, yes, it was offensive to all those at-risk workers— Dr Stone —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Quite clearly it is on relevancy. The answer we are after is about the pipeline out of the lower Murray and the— The SPEAKER —The Acting Prime Minister is aware of the need to be relevant. I will listen carefully now that the Acting Prime Minister is responding to the question. Ms GILLARD —My simple point was that the former government was a government that acted in a series of areas but not in relation to this one in any effective way. Can I say to the member for Mayo that I have reasonable eyesight, assisted as I am, but clearly I cannot read across the chamber a letter he holds up. I am very happy, should he choose to have the letter brought round, to ensure that it is responded to and responded to promptly, but I cannot respond to it in detail having it held up as far away from me as that letter was. What I can say to the member for Mayo is that the government understands that right across the Murray-Darling Basin irrigators and the environment are suffering as a result of very extended drought. These statistics are probably very familiar to the member for Mayo but, for members of the House, we have now had 38 consecutive months of below average monthly inflows into the River Murray. Over the last 10 years, inflows into five of the eight catchments in the southern Murray-Darling Basin have been around or worse than the CSIRO’s worst case projections for 2030. As we all know, water entitlements issued to the river under the Living Murray initiative— Mr Hunt —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. The question was about saving the Lower Lakes by stopping the pipeline. The SPEAKER —The Acting Prime Minister will respond to the question. Ms GILLARD —My point in going through these statistics is that water is short. There is nothing that covers that up. Water is short, and in these difficult situations— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER —Order! The question has been asked. Ms GILLARD —obviously governments are trying to manage the situation. Through the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council, the Rudd government is supporting measures to protect the Lower Lakes from acidifying in the short term. Obviously, as the water levels get lower and lower, the question of the acidic content of the lakes becomes critical. South Australia is also developing longer term management options for the Lower Lakes, with funding support from the Rudd Labor government. The Australian government has agreed to provide South Australia with up to $200 million for long-term management of the Lower Lakes and the Coorong and up to $120 million for a pipeline network to service communities reliant on the Lower Lakes for fresh water supplies. These steps are being taken because we understand how difficult the situation is, how difficult it is for the residents of South Australia and how difficult it is for those who are reliant on the water in the river for irrigation and other purposes. We have taken these actions as a government because we understand these problems. I would compare that record in 12 months with the record of inaction over 12 long years. Fran Bailey interjecting— Ms GILLARD —The member for McEwen, who is gesticulating wildly now, might like to think about the opportunities lost over those 12 long years. Mr Briggs —Mr Speaker, as requested, I seek to table the letter from the Alexandrina Council for the Acting Prime Minister. Leave granted.  adminThu, 04 Dec 2008 05:16:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:23http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Mayo/MayoEvents/tabid/74/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/28/Speech-to-the-House-on-the-BROADCASTING-LEGISLATION-AMENDMENTDIGITAL-TELEVISION-SWITCHOVER-BILL-2008-Consideration-of-Senate-Message-04-December-2008.aspx#Comments0http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=74&ModuleID=376&ArticleID=28http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=28&PortalID=0&TabID=74http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Mayo/MayoEvents/tabid/74/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/28/Speech-to-the-House-on-the-BROADCASTING-LEGISLATION-AMENDMENTDIGITAL-TELEVISION-SWITCHOVER-BILL-2008-Consideration-of-Senate-Message-04-December-2008.aspx  BROADCASTING LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (DIGITAL TELEVISION SWITCH-OVER) BILL 2008 - Consideration of Senate Message Mr BRIGGS (Mayo) (9:34 AM) —I will be brief in order to assist in the functioning of the House. I have a significant issue about TV reception in my electorate. The district council area of Yankalilla is one of the most beautiful parts of Australia, and I urge all members on the other side of the House to come and visit Yankalilla at some point. Yankalilla has a topography which creates real difficulties with TV transmission. The people are very concerned. It is a poor council because it has a small number of ratepayers. A lot of people holiday in the area, so services are expected. But they have an issue with the changeover of equipment, which will cost about $1.4 million. I rise today simply to urge the government to assist these small councils and regional areas with particular topography issues in handling the switch-over. I am a big supporter of digital TV. I think it is the right technology. It will create a lot of additional spectrum, which will create a lot of additional revenue for the government at some point in time. But we should help these small areas who need this assistance to switch over. I urge the government to quickly announce a package of assistance in the next budget.  adminThu, 04 Dec 2008 01:23:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:28http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Mayo/MayoEvents/tabid/74/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/27/Speech-to-the-House-on-the-SCHOOLS-ASSISTANCE-BILL-2008-Consideration-of-Senate-Message-03-December-2008.aspx#Comments0http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=74&ModuleID=376&ArticleID=27http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=27&PortalID=0&TabID=74http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Mayo/MayoEvents/tabid/74/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/27/Speech-to-the-House-on-the-SCHOOLS-ASSISTANCE-BILL-2008-Consideration-of-Senate-Message-03-December-2008.aspx  SCHOOLS ASSISTANCE BILL 2008 - Consideration of Senate Message Mr BRIGGS (Mayo) (12:19 PM) —I rise to support the shadow minister, the member for Sturt, and to support amendment (4) passed by the Senate last evening. What we saw before was typical of the Deputy Prime Minister where she puts words into people’s mouths and verbals people. She made the claim that we do not support education. That was the claim she made when she stood up and spoke. That is completely untrue. I spoke very clearly in this House on this bill because I do support education. I support education because I understand the importance of educating our young people. As a father with two young children, I understand how important education is. As a conflict of interest, I intend to send my children to an independent school. I know that might be offensive to those on the other side, but I do. In fact, my eldest will be in her primary year of school in 2012 when this national curriculum starts—three years away. So why is the Deputy Prime Minister threatening the independent schools sector in December 2008 with something that will not begin until 2012, and we have not even seen it yet? We in this place are expected to sign a blank cheque for the Deputy Prime Minister on a national curriculum that my children will learn under. You sit there and tell us we do not care about education. Let me tell you, Deputy Prime Minister, that we do care about education—we care deeply about education—and we will not be told by a bullying Deputy Prime Minister that we do not. We know that is your tactic. We know the arrogant tactic to come in here and be virtuous on everything. We dare speak out. Can you imagine an opposition speaking out? Can you imagine an opposition actually standing in this place, in a democracy, and raising issues with the government of the day, particularly when we might be right? I know it hurts to make mistakes. We have all made mistakes. The previous government make mistakes, this government has made mistakes; and you have made a mistake. So you should change your mind on this bill and accept the amendment. Yet again the Deputy Prime Minister refuses to identify the shadow minister’s and the opposition’s role in this. That is part of the political tactic—the opposition is irrelevant. We have seen it with the global financial crisis where a big mistake was made on the bank deposits guarantee, a mistake they would not have made had they listened to the Leader of the Opposition. We have seen it with this bill—she has backed down on two provisions, the schools hit list being the main one—and we have seen it with this mistake. There is no need for the national curriculum to be moved until 2012. It has not been written yet. We know who is going to be writing it—close friends and people from backgrounds not dissimilar to that of the Deputy Prime Minister. Ms Gillard —That is disgusting. Mr BRIGGS —We know what their backgrounds are. I am not commenting on their backgrounds but we know what the backgrounds of some of these people are. The member for Sturt, the shadow minister for education, referred to the view of some in the sector on this bill. I would like to reflect on one of the submissions to the Senate inquiry—one from Geelong College, which is an independent school, so I know that the Deputy Prime Minister does not like it. It is probably quite a well-resourced school, in fact. This is what they said to the Senate inquiry: What is of particular concern, however, is that, through the introduction of the legislation in its current form, we are being required to accept the national curriculum even though it is yet to be written. So, it is a blank cheque for the Deputy Prime Minister to push her ideological agenda. This is what it is all about—it always is with the Deputy Prime Minister. She is a very clever lawyer; she argues her way through things. She is very good at it. I accept that she is extraordinarily good on her feet. The problem is— Mr Craig Thomson —Not tricky and mean. Work Choices—that was your legislation. Mr BRIGGS —Here we go again! The typical tactic—bullying the opposition. Go ahead. You can try to bully us all you like. It might work in the Labor Party, it might be part of the Labor Party’s tactics, but it does not work with us. We are happy to stand up and argue our point because we are right. One thing I imagine will be included in the national curriculum is the word ‘decisive’. Let us see how many more ‘decisives’ we get on the decisive-o-metre today. We are up to six in December; let us see what we get up to today. There were 156 in October and 111 in November. We are off to a flyer in December. What the Deputy Prime Minister can do today to give assurance to the independent school sector is accept the amendment and move on.  adminWed, 03 Dec 2008 01:19:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:27http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Mayo/MayoEvents/tabid/74/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/17/Speech-to-the-House-on-the-FAIR-WORK-BILL-2008-Second-Reading-2-December-2008.aspx#Comments0http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=74&ModuleID=376&ArticleID=17http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=17&PortalID=0&TabID=74http://www.jamiebriggs.com.au/Mayo/MayoEvents/tabid/74/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/17/Speech-to-the-House-on-the-FAIR-WORK-BILL-2008-Second-Reading-2-December-2008.aspxMr BRIGGS (Mayo) (6.53 p.m.) - I rise to speak on the Fair Work Bill 2008. Before I speak to particular provisions of the bill, I think it is important to put on the record my view of the history of this matter. Industrial relations battles have defined Australia’s public policy history more than any others. Indeed, it spawned the birth of the Australian Labor Party and many on that side of the House hold it very close to their hearts. It is a battleground steeped in ideology as well as language. Words like ‘good faith’, ‘unfair’ and ‘entitlements’ can mean vastly different things depending on which side of the political fence you occupy. It is a subject that inevitably touches the lives of nearly all Australians through their employment or business arrangements and, therefore, it forms a very important pillar of the Australian economy. It has become part of the political wisdom that the former Prime Minister made an error of judgement in 2005 by removing the no disadvantage test from agreement making. What is certain, however, is that Work Choices is dead. I believe the former government made an error in 2005 in removing the no disadvantage test. While it was designed to create more jobs, it concerned working Australians who believed the balance had been taken too far. To assist them with this perception, the union movement spent a record amount by a third party on a campaign to scare people. The campaign worked very well. It must also be said that the new Labor government also campaigned on the issue. They did so in a misleading way, but at least on this matter they put out a detailed policy, which is largely reflected in the bill before the House. So the new government has made its bed and it is a bed they will lie in. But my prediction to this place is this: the economic consequences of these changes will hang around the government’s neck like an electoral albatross. It is a bill written for those who represent only 14 per cent of the Australian workforce. We watch the arrogant display of those on the other side as they celebrate their victory through this debate. The Australian people dislike overt arrogance, and while the introduction of this bill may seem like their finest hour, the consequences of the changes this bill makes could well be the end of any parliamentary careers on that side. And if members opposite think that yelling out ‘Work Choices’ at members on this side each time we rise to speak will prevent us from making legitimate criticisms, they are wrong. While bullying might be alive and well in certain parts of the Labor Party, it never concerns nor fazes those of us on this side who will hold their government to account. So while the former government made a mistake in removing the no disadvantage test by taking the balance too far one way, this bill swings the balance much too far the other way and this will have severe consequences for our economy. It should be noted that much of the former government’s framework remains in this bill. For instance, the restrictions on industrial action are still contained in this bill. In particular, retaining pre-strike ballots is a provision to be welcomed. The national system of workplace relations, fought for by the former Prime Minister and the former government, remains. And can I pay credit to the Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Procurement for standing up to forces in New South Wales on his side of politics that wanted to reverse this important reform. The post-1996 reforms to Australia’s workplace laws delivered more jobs, higher wages and less industrial disputes. The reforms took Australia from the economic dark ages to the stronger, prouder and more prosperous country that we handed to the Rudd government in 2007. When the Howard government came to office in March 1996 it found a completely different situation. It found the darkest of economic times. Australia was just beginning to recover from the deepest recession since the Great Depression, with an associated human cost of one million unemployed and interest rates soaring to more than double today’s levels—destroying families, businesses and lives. It found a budget in deficit and $96 billion in government debt. The Australian workplace was uncompetitive. Restrictive awards applied across industries and businesses. The workplace was dominated by heavy-handed and unwanted intervention from third parties driving industrial disputes through the roof, killing productivity. What the Howard government did was focus on jobs. It freed the Australian workplace from unwanted intervention, and it let it get on with business. It focused its reforms on opportunities for all Australians, not just the select few. Those on the other side will continue to claim that this reform agenda was designed to attack unions. Rather, what the government did was stand for the rule of law. In this House a number of weeks ago, the Deputy Prime Minister said that no-one was above the law. This is one of the very, very rare occasions I fundamentally agree with her. So in that respect, the decision by the Howard government to free the wharves of unlawful behaviour was right. The doubling in crane rates on our wharves proves that decision correct. The decision by the Howard government to ensure that the rule of law applied in respect of the building industry was right. The new government should resist the current campaign by some left-wing unions and members of their own side against the Australian Building and Construction Commission. The ABCC is doing its job well, increasing productivity by reducing illegal industrial action. The approach being taken by the Prime Minister and those opposite in relation to the legacy of the former government is to dismiss it, to deny it exists. But they simply cannot deny the facts. The facts being that the Howard government’s legacy of reform has been a major contributor to the Australian economic success story. More than 2.2 million new jobs, the highest amount of Australians working in history, the lowest unemployment rate in a generation, real wages being lifted by over 20 per cent and the lowest level of industrial disputations in memory: these are the benefits of hard-won reform. The Prime Minister likes to claim that these results are simply because of a lucky mining boom, but he fails to recognise the structural changes that allowed Australian companies to make the most of the good times. In comparing this reform agenda with the new government’s approach, I come to the bill being debated in this place today. The Deputy Prime Minister makes great a play of the idea that this is delivering on Labor’s election commitments, and to some degree she is right. Labor is entitled to move the bill to ensure its commitments are met. However, this bill goes much, much further in one respect: union power. Without doubt, unions play an important role in our workplaces, but that role should not be at the expense of choice in the workplace. This bill reintroduces the privileged position that the union movement used to enjoy to the detriment of the individual and to the detriment of choice. Through the new provisions around union preference bargaining, the bill forces employers to bargain with unions even if the majority of workers do not wish the union to be involved. It rewards union recalcitrance by allowing a third party to stand by an ambit claim with no real desire to settle, forcing an arbitrated outcome. This is in proposed section 269 of the bill. It opens up right of entry powers again to allow union officials to inspect the books of non-union employees, even though the Deputy Prime Minister said this would not happen. It allows agreements to force non-union members to pay a fee for the privilege of being represented by a union even if they did not request it. Proposed section 124 requires a government department to send out information to a new employee that they can join a union. These provisions are mistaken. They are a payback for the multimillion dollar scare campaign that the union bosses ran over the past two years. The Labor government is putting the interests of the union movement ahead of working Australians and the Australian economy. This bill will damage job opportunities at the wrong time for our economy—and it is not just the coalition making this claim. On the weekend I came across an assessment of the new Fair Work Bill that is important to consider. It was not an assessment done by me, by John Howard or even by one of the Deputy Prime Minister’s favourite extreme employer organisations. Rather it was a newspaper article written by Paul Kelly, who is hardly known for his conservative leanings. He writes: Kevin Rudd shouts from the rooftops each day that the global financial crisis has changed the world, but the Prime Minister does not believe his own words. A bizarre fate has befallen Australia. At the precise time it faces a global crisis, a business downturn and rising unemployment, the Rudd Government is recasting workplace relations to increase trade union powers, inhibit employment and impose new costs on employers. Normally this would defy any test of common sense. Indeed, it would seem the essence of irresponsibility. Paul Kelly continues: It is as though Australia’s workplace relations system exists in some interterrestrial immunity from the rest of the economic world. The global crisis means everything has changed … But standing immovable is Labor’s support for greater trade union power, more costly restrictions on employers— The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms JA Saffin) - Order! I cannot hear the honourable member for Mayo because of the discussion across the table. I would appreciate it if it were kept a bit quieter so that I may hear. Mr BRIGGS - Thank you for your protection, Madam Deputy Speaker. The article continued: … a greater role for the revamped industrial relations commission, an effective end to individual statutory contracts, a revival of arbitration, and a sharp weakening of direct employer and non-union employee bargaining. Mr Kelly concludes: The new workplace relations model introduced by Gillard is a significant step into the past … It is hard to imagine how its impact will be other than to weaken productivity and employment. So the message from one of Australia’s most impartial and respected commentators is clear: this bill will damage our economy. It takes Australia in the wrong direction at the wrong time. It will not create jobs; rather it will reduce employment. Paul Kelly has belled the cat, something those opposite would be wise to bear in mind during this debate. I now turn to direct election promises breached by the Deputy Prime Minister—or the ‘empress for unemployment’, as the shadow minister dubbed her yesterday. I recall the scene last year when with great indignation she claimed she was being misrepresented on a daily basis by the then government. In fact, a piece in the Australian Financial Review on 31 August 2007 written by the Deputy Prime Minister expressed her frustration at being misrepresented. If I had a dollar for every time I have had to correct a misrepresentation of Labor’s industrial relations policy I would certainly be a millionaire. Let us look at the Deputy Prime Minister’s statements against what is actually in the bill. The Deputy Prime Minister claimed that compulsory arbitration will not be a feature of the good faith bargaining system. In the same Financial Review article of 31 August 2007—I have it here—she wrote: There will be no automatic right for a union to be involved in the enterprise bargaining for a collective agreement. Yet proposed section 269 of the bill reveals this to be a lie. Good faith bargaining is and always has been a misnomer. In truth it should be called union preference bargaining. These new provisions—this new paradigm in Australian workplace relations—are a guise to get the unions back in the door of every Australian workplace. It is couched in the term ‘good faith’ to make it difficult to argue against. How could anyone be against bargaining in good faith? But the truth is that it allows third parties to force their way into bargaining where they are not even wanted or required. Take a situation where a workplace of 100 employees has one union member. The employer decides to engage in bargaining for an agreement directly with his workforce. Ninety-nine of the workers wish to deal directly with the employer, but one member wishes the union to be involved. The employer says, ‘No, the majority want to deal directly,’ but the union official insists. In that circumstance, the Fair Work Australia Bill will require that the employer deal with the union. So much for the other 99 workers and their rights. And this is not my legal advice; it is the advice of Freehills, a very well respected Melbourne law firm. The Australian reports today that Freehills says: … “true non-union agreements” would be possible under Labor’s system only where there were no union members, or where a union chose not to be covered by the agreement. So the choice is with the union. Of course, what will be included in these agreements? Union bargaining fees. My prediction is this: the fee will be just slightly higher than the annual union membership fee. Guess what that will mean? Higher union membership. The revolving slush fund is complete. Unions campaign for Labor; Labor wins government and writes law for the unions. There is no clearer proof than this that our election funding laws need to be looked at. The House may be surprised that I make this claim, given the Deputy Prime Minister promised that union bargaining fees would be banned. She was misrepresented on a daily basis last year; it was outrageous! But section 353(4) allows bargaining fees. Imagine our surprise—the ultimate dirty little deal. This is not to say that workers should not be able to have a representative, but it is simply ludicrous to allow a situation where a union is required to be consulted on every bargain throughout Australia. How is this part of a plan to create jobs and keep our economy strong? The answer, of course, is that it is not; it is a payback. As with the COAG agreement, the Deputy Prime Minister will claim that this bill will create some huge amount of jobs. She will pluck a figure from the air. There will be no evidence to back up the claim. The Deputy Prime Minister will just make assertions, as she always does, and the parrots on the side will repeat the mantra developed by the hollow men and hollow women and parroted by those opposite. The two predictions on jobs we actually have—real predictions—are from the government’s own budget papers, the MYEFO and the OECD, which suggest, in the case of OECD, 200,000 fewer jobs. Another broken promise of the Deputy Prime Minister, the empress for unemployment, was her promise that the existing right-of-entry provisions—and this was raised in question time today—would continue. But, again, this is proved wrong, at section 478 of the bill. I refer again to the AustralianFinancial Review of 31 August 2007—it is a little gem, this article—the Deputy Prime Minister wrote: Right of entry provisions as they currently stand will be maintained by a Rudd Labor government, without exception. ‘Without exception’! The bill allows the ridiculous situation of a non-union member having their personal information looked at by a unionist on a fishing expedition. It must raise significant concerns about privacy. Yesterday’s editorial in the West Australian says it all: Certainly, members of such workplaces will feel betrayed if details of their salaries, which are a confidential matter between them and their employers, are available to a union they have elected not to join. But as usual the Deputy Prime Minister, the empress for unemployment, will tell this House that black is white and white is black, with a straight face, as she continues her climb up the slippery Labor leadership pole—because, of course, part of the reason this bill goes so far in rewarding the unions is that the Deputy Prime Minister, the empress for unemployment, knows that when her time comes to start destabilising, she will need their support. The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms JA Saffin) - Could I ask the honourable member for Mayo to be aware of standing order 90 about imputations and reflections and to think about what he is saying. Mr BRIGGS - But the classic piece of spin doctoring by the Deputy Prime Minister is that individual agreements are no longer part of the system. This is simply wrong. Not only will AWAs and ITEAs continue forever, but the Deputy Prime Minister has allowed individual facilitation agreements. On my reading of these agreements, they allow a legal arrangement between an employer and an employee outside of the award system. That is an individual agreement. So, to use Labor’s new mantra, ‘Look at what they do, not what they say.’ Finally, the response to this bill by certain employer organisations has been a disgrace. At some stage, their members will consider whether they are being represented properly or if those at the top of those organisations are seeking favour in the future from the current government. In this bill, we see the worst aspects of Labor—where they arrogantly presume to be the holders of all knowledge, where they assume that Australians cannot make their own decisions without having someone else tell them what to do. Labor has always been more interested in representing those in the employment club rather than those outside the employment club. The true test of this bill will be its impact on Australians. The true test of this bill will be how many jobs it will have created by the next election. The true test of this bill will be how wages have fared. The true test will be the level of industrial disputation. I believe that elements of this bill will damage our economy and hurt ordinary workers. This overreach by the Deputy Prime Minister in her search for the Labor leadership will be a mistake that will haunt her and her party in the future. Worst of all, it will hurt those Australians who will miss out on an opportunity to get a job and an opportunity to make more of their future. This side of the House will always stand for jobs; that side of the House will always stand for big union power.adminTue, 02 Dec 2008 01:47:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:17