Justine Keay's recent appearances (OpenAustralia.org)
Braddon Electorate | Adjournment | House debates
Almost three years ago I was extremely fortunate to be elected to this place by the good people of Braddon. It is remarkable that, over the last three years, the issues and challenges for my...
Almost three years ago I was extremely fortunate to be elected to this place by the good people of Braddon. It is remarkable that, over the last three years, the issues and challenges for my region remain the same. And those issues will remain the same unless there is a change of government. The budget handed down this week by the Prime Minister and his Treasurer has confirmed that the people of Braddon will be better off under a Shorten Labor government. In all the key priority areas for our region, Labor has a better plan—for health, education, TAFE, apprenticeships, tax cuts, jobs and economic growth, and let's not forget wages. This government has no plan to help boost the wages of people in my electorate. My local paper—The Advocate, the wonderful Fairfax daily paper in my electorate—today talks about how subdued wages have led to significant decline in retail turnover. That's not good for businesses in my electorate. But this government has forgotten those people who earn under $40,000 a year. In my electorate, the gross income for 25 per cent of people is $33,000 a year or less. This government has completely forgotten them. We've got a household median income that is $330 a week less than the Australian median income, and this government doesn't really seem to care about the people in my electorate. Let's talk about penalty rates. Because this government hasn't acted on penalty rates, it has cost businesses in my electorate $10 million. There are so many issues that I could speak on in the time that I have, but I want to particularly focus on two: support for our farmers and support for our people when they are unwell. During the 2016 election, farmers in my electorate were devastated by a combination of flood and dairy-price clawbacks. They wanted government support, but none of that was given. The minister at the time, the member for New England, couldn't even be bothered to come down and speak to my farmers. But now, three years on, farmers are telling me they want support from government to increase their productivity, increase local jobs and grow our economy. They want government to invest in more irrigation, building upon Labor's tranche 1 and 2 Tasmanian irrigation schemes. I note the irony of those opposite who have turned up in Tasmania in recent times taking credit for the completion of tranche 2 schemes. They forget that every irrigation scheme constructed in Tasmania over the last 20 years has been either planned or funded by Labor. For the last six years, this government has done nothing—a lack of vision, a lack of leadership. So once again it's up to Labor to lead the way and roll out the next phase of Tasmanian irrigation projects. A Shorten Labor government will provide $100 million towards these projects, many of which are in my electorate of Braddon, in our wonderful dairying areas in the far north-west. But this government offers Tasmanian farmers nothing—not a cent—for irrigation. Shortly after I was elected in 2016, I received an email from Dr John O'Sullivan from the Devonport GP Superclinic. Dr O'Sullivan was concerned that this government had axed a fund called TAZREACH that enabled visiting medical specialists to come to his practice and many areas in my region, including the west coast of Tasmania, Circular Head and King Island. His concerns at the time were shared by the West Coast Council mayor, Phil Vickers, who said that this loss was detrimental to his community. He said: The loss of these services places more stress on unwell residents and will also place more pressure on these services in other regions as West Coasters will now have to travel to attend appointments. Three years later these health cuts remain in place. Sick people are being forced to travel, and some are not even going to their appointments. Labor will re-establish this fund, with $4½ million, to get visiting medical specialists to regional and rural areas of Tasmania. I would like to thank Dr John O'Sullivan and all the small businesses across the north-west for helping us collect this petition. I'm unable to table it because the Petitions Committee has not met, but over 1,000 people in my electorate have signed this petition. We've been campaigning on this for three years. But, again, the budget on Tuesday night did not fund this service. This government has no care or respect for those in regional Australia, particularly in regional Tasmania, for making sure that they get the best care outcomes possible. Dr O'Sullivan said recently: We had a great service, with cardiologists, physicians and psychiatrists. They were on site to be able to look after our patients but now these patients have to travel for some of their care. We have an elderly population and patients who are unwell. They need access to ready medical care in rural areas and should not have to travel 60kms or 100kms for that. This government has failed again. But the choice is clear. Labor will invest in health. Labor will be there to support our farmers.
Budget | Statements by Members | House debates
After six years of cuts and chaos, last night's budget has confirmed that Braddon will be better off under Labor. For all of the key priorities for our region, Labor has a better plan: health,...
After six years of cuts and chaos, last night's budget has confirmed that Braddon will be better off under Labor. For all of the key priorities for our region, Labor has a better plan: health, education, TAFE apprenticeships, tax cuts, jobs and economic growth. The coalition have copied Labor's personal tax cuts, but they are so out of touch that they have given a smaller tax cut to people earning less than $40,000 a year, and Braddon has some of the lowest wages in the nation. Yet again, these people have been ignored. Labor will fix this inequity. The budget does nothing to fix Tasmania's health crisis, caused by years of Liberal cuts. It locks in cuts to hospitals, fails to address the elective surgery backlog in Tasmania and fails to fund TAZREACH, a program that ensures visiting medical specialists come to the region to save people time in travelling to see them. Labor will fix this. The budget locks in cuts to Braddon schools, but Labor will fix this. The budget fails to reverse cuts to TAFE and apprenticeships. In Braddon we've lost almost 700 apprentices under this government, but Labor will fix this. Our farmers will also be disappointed by the Liberals, as this budget does not contain one cent for tranche 3 of Tasmania's irrigation projects, but Labor will fix this. This program has the potential to create hundreds of jobs and grow our economy, and Labor will deliver this funding. I thank the Prime Minister for delivering a budget that clearly shows that Labor is the only choice to fix the key issues in my region.
Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Support for Infrastructure Financing) Bill 2019; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
It is important to reiterate the importance of the relationship this country has with our Pacific nations and some of the failures of the current government, but I do acknowledge that we are...
It is important to reiterate the importance of the relationship this country has with our Pacific nations and some of the failures of the current government, but I do acknowledge that we are supportive of this bill. We will see what happens in the Senate inquiry. The relationship is very important to the people in my electorate, and that's what I am talking about when I am talking about the agricultural visa. You might like to say that it is bit of foreign aid to have people like the Niueans come and pick strawberries in my electorate and then send that money back home to their country. I think it's very, very relevant. Maybe the member is a little bit offended by what I've said because it is actually true. But we then look at the backpacker tax, which does has significant implications for some of those workers. That was an issue where this government failed to address the labour shortages in a lot of regional Australia, and some of those are National Party seats, would you believe. Anyway. We'll go now to the cuts to foreign aid where this government has cut $11 billion. That's a direct impact on the people on those islands. That aid went directly to the Pacific. This is another policy failure—proof, yet again, that this government does not take the Pacific or its people seriously at all. The Pacific will be a core business for Labor. As I said before, we announced some policy and then the government followed late last year. For starters, we will tackle climate change, because we don't believe the earth is flat and we do acknowledge that it is a significant issue of great concern to the people in the Pacific. We welcome the fact that the government has woken up and mirrored our plans in this bill, as I said before, which is important, and I think that's very relevant. Labor has a plan to create a government-funded infrastructure bank for the Pacific to drive investment in the region. New Zealand is already doing this. It's a bit sad when we have to follow our friends from over the ditch, but that's what happens when you act very, very slowly. The United States has passed the BUILD Act. This will establish a development finance corporation called International Development Finance Corporation. A similar body exists in the UK. They will invest solely in Africa and Asia. The international community is acting, and it is welcome that this government is again following. Labor also welcomes the Australian benefits test that forms part of this bill. This test means any alliance provided by Efic must have a benefit to Australia or a person conducting business in Australia. I just note some of the businesses in my state, those in advanced manufacturing, who can play a critical role in some of the infrastructure building in the Pacific, whether it be through renewable energy generation, with new technology that we can assist Pacific Islanders with, and, of course, addressing climate change. This test means that any loans provided by Efic must have a benefit to those people, which is really important for our own business. Labor will reposition Australia in its rightful place as a friend to the Pacific. In all those examples I mentioned before, we do have some groundwork to make up to re-establish the important partnership that we have. We will enhance security and prosperity in the region. This government can't do it because of their inaction and inability to accept climate change, which our Pacific friends so desperately need us to act on. This proposed legislation is welcome. We will be supporting it, but if the other side were genuine they would also join Labor by making a genuine effort to address climate change.
I welcome this opportunity to speak on this bill, the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Support for Infrastructure Financing) Bill 2019, and I thank my colleague the member for...
I welcome this opportunity to speak on this bill, the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Support for Infrastructure Financing) Bill 2019, and I thank my colleague the member for Lyons and all those from the opposition for their contributions today. I guess this is just another example of the coalition following Labor on policy. It seems to be happening a lot, which is probably not a bad thing. Imitation is the best form of flattery. So we'll see how this goes. I know it's being referred to a Senate inquiry. We'll look forward to what comes out of those recommendations. I'm sure the Senate will look at those when this bill comes to their chamber. We announced a policy on 29 October, and the Prime Minister announced his on 8 November. Obviously, our policy is to strengthen those partnerships that we have with Pacific nations, and a number of factors that were announced around that have come through the coalition's policy. But the Liberals' commitment has only come about because of their history of blunders, sadly—their missteps, their insults and their policy failures when it comes to the Pacific. These failings came to a head in the last quarter of 2018, since the current Prime Minister was given the role. You can contrast that with Labor. Here on this side of politics, we genuinely want to engage with the Pacific. I'd like to put on record the work of the member for Corio and of Senator Claire Moore, who, sadly, is departing this place. They are both very strong advocates for Australia's role in the Pacific and for the partnership that we have with the Pacific. Their contributions have been very valuable. The member for Corio will continue to do that, as well as a number of other people in this place, but Senator Moore will be sadly missed in her advocacy for the Pacific. This proposed legislation is welcome but it is long overdue. But it does seek to reaffirm our place in the Pacific, which is a good thing—a place which, sadly, has been compromised by this government, which has clearly taken its eye off the ball. As a result, other nations are gaining a foothold in the region. That, in itself, is not necessarily a bad thing but Australia, as the nearest neighbour, should be playing a leading role. The member for Lyons made some valuable points: it is good for security in our region and there are also opportunities for our businesses to work in collaboration with those nations. The former minister Senator Fierravanti-Wells' successor, Senator Ruston, was appointed as an assistant minister by the PM after all that kerfuffle with the leadership changes. The former minister said that it sent the wrong signal. She said: 'I'm disappointed that this is happening at a time when we have growing interests and growing contestability in the Pacific region.' I guess this is just further proof that this government has not been taking the Pacific seriously at all. Another example was when the Prime Minister snubbed Pacific islands leaders by failing to attend the Pacific Islands Forum in early September. Other leaders were there but our Prime Minister was missing in action, which does not send a good signal at all. And then we have the issue around the current environment minister, Melissa Price. Senator Fierravanti-Wells called her 'an L-plate minister', which is a little bit harsh—but I guess they are all up for criticism! It was reported that, at a Canberra restaurant, the environment minister said to the former president of Kiribati, Anote Tong: 'I know why you're here. It's for the cash. For the Pacific, it's always about the cash. I've got my chequebook here. How much do you want?' I think we were all pretty offended by that, not just those Pacific nations and Mr Tong. It is reported that Nuie's Premier, Toke Talagi, said: 'People say some stupid things sometimes.' When you are dealing with our neighbours, you need to be a bit more diplomatic in your approach. That's another failure of this government. Commenting on the issue, Cook Islands Deputy Prime Minister Mark Brown mentioned the government's policy failures on climate change. He said: 'I do understand that science is a difficult subject for some people, but some of these comments coming from Australian ministers kind of resemble the comments you hear from the flat earth society.' I very much agree with him. I think there are a number of people on the government benches who are still debating whether the earth is flat or round! Seriously, we have to get with the times; it is quite embarrassing, really. I agree with the Cook Islands Deputy Prime Minister's comments. The September Pacific Islands Forum declared climate change to be 'the single greatest threat to the livelihood, security and wellbeing of the peoples of the Pacific'. This was a forum that our Prime Minister did not attend—and, sadly, he leads a government full of sceptics. There is an opportunity for that to change in just a few weeks time at the upcoming election. Whilst this proposed legislation is welcome, you can't have a Pacific policy if you don't have a climate change policy. We need to do our bit but first we've got to agree; among those opposite, sadly, there are many that don't. Another example of the chaos and division of this government is the agriculture visa debacle. We have to look at that as undermining existing programs. It will undermine Tasmania's horticultural industry, which relies on the seasonal worker program. In my electorate, I have a berry farmer, a major large company, which needs thousands and thousands of workers and really does rely on the Pacific islands seasonal visa program. It helps with their product and it helps with the expansion. They are incredible workers. I know a number of the Niueans who are working in farms just near where I live, and they are some of the most amazing strawberry pickers you could ever come across. This agriculture visa was really a thought-bubble concocted by the National Party to give the new leader of the National Party a win. It didn't happen because the senior coalition partner slapped the junior down—
Future Drought Fund Bill 2018, Future Drought Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2018; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I think it's pretty unfair when we have this banter in this place, or if it's outside, where one side says the other doesn't care about farmers or that we don't care about farmers in drought. I...
I think it's pretty unfair when we have this banter in this place, or if it's outside, where one side says the other doesn't care about farmers or that we don't care about farmers in drought. I think that really needs to stop. I come from a regional area of Tasmania that has suffered significant bushfires because of very dry conditions. I have a very agricultural electorate; some of the members opposite have been to my electorate—not many, but some. My whole state is regional, if you want to look at it that way, and, sadly, a large part of my state has been the victim of bushfires. I think this is where this Future Drought Fund Bill 2018 is lacking, because it just looks at drought. In previous, recent, years, a lot of my farmers have been dealing with drought conditions, but they've also been dealing with floods. We know what's going on in Northern Queensland, and I think we need to look at a way to assist our farmers that is not just restricted to drought. There is a better way. I think it's absolutely appalling that this government is using the BAF—the Building Australia Fund—to fund something that is quite narrow, because that fund assists infrastructure building in regional communities like mine. These are significant projects which really help regional Australia move; whether it's the high-value product that comes out of our regional economies and regional communities, it's supporting jobs in that way. So there is a better way, and Labor has a better way. I heard some of the contributions that have been made, and I did feel a little sad when I heard the comments made by the member for Hunter about the most recent years under the previous Minister for Agriculture, the member for New England—I guess, his laziness and incompetence as a minister. I know this from personal experience, because when my farmers were going through issues—you couldn't even bear to talk to them because the dairy crisis was so heartwrenching—I called out to that minister. There were no party politics involved and no strings attached. I invited that minister to come to my state to meet with my farmers. They had been through a drought as well, they were doing it really tough, and that minister at that time ignored my pleas and requests. I think that's a very bad reflection on him. The member for Hunter can probably talk for days about the incompetence of that minister and where we are now. That minister didn't really lay very good ground to support our farmers over the past few years, and we are where we are now with not a lot actually happening to support them. I have to say that I have more hope for the new agriculture minister. He has been to my state maybe once. He is more than welcome to come to Tasmania, and I have asked him to meet with my farmers—particularly my dairy farmers—to speak with them directly. Again, that is with no strings attached; just come to my state. One of the things that I was once told was that National Party members were not allowed in the state of Tasmania. Well, we have a National Party senator now, and I understand that the National Party has preselected National Party candidates, even against Liberal Party candidates. That is quite extraordinary, to say the least. So I'm sure the new Minister for Agriculture is more than welcome to come to Tasmania. What we have seen are a number of policy failures by this government which have had a real consequence at the coalface, where farming families have been struggling through drought, flood and fire, and also that dairy price clawback that we saw in 2016. Those things come with massive financial and human costs, and it just breaks your heart to talk to these farmers. I'd like to take this opportunity to put on the record my tribute to services like Rural Business Tasmania and Rural Alive & Well, who have done so much for farming families, not just in my electorate but across the state of Tasmania. In many ways, Tasmania is blessed with an abundance of water. We have one per cent of Australia's land mass but, on average, 13 per cent of the rainfall. It doesn't rain every day, but on most days it does in one part of our state. But we do have a problem as to where the rain actually falls. I've said this a number of times, and I don't quite know if people believe me when I say it, but Hobart is actually the second-driest capital city in Australia, outside Perth. The east coast and the Midlands, in the electorate of Lyons, are in the rain shadow, with the majority of rain falling on the west coast and the north-west coast, which is in my electorate; hence we have so many wonderful dams. On the north-west coast, farming is different to what you see in Bourke or Coonamble. But when there is a dry season or successive dry seasons, the dams dry up, the irrigators stop pumping and the consequences are the same for our farmers. A positive for Tasmanian farmers has been the success of state and federal Labor irrigation projects. I stress that it was Labor who invested in our irrigation projects in Tasmania which completely transformed agriculture in our state, and even the landscape has been absolutely astonishing. I'll have more to say about the role irrigation plays in Tasmania for our farmers. As I've said, Tasmania's not immune to drought. I'm not sure why, but drought in Tasmania does not seem to fall on the radar of those opposite. Maybe it's because they don't have any Tasmanian representatives in this House; hopefully it will stay that way, because the Labor representatives here are always supporting our farmers and always talking about what we can do to help them in times of need. The spring of 2015 was the hottest and driest on record. The dry was followed by, again, bushfires in the summer of 2016 which were then, as I've mentioned, followed by the dairy price clawbacks. And just as night follows day, the drought was broken with the devastating floods of 2016, where, sadly, a few lives were lost in my community. In recent weeks, Tasmanian farmers and also the forestry sector have again been hit with devastating, devastating bushfires. Throughout 2015 and 2016, the coalition were nowhere to be seen. During the dairy crisis, as I said, that minister I invited did not come. But we spoke to those farmers and we've continued to speak to those farmers. It's really pleasing today to have the member for Hunter, our shadow agricultural minister, announce support for our dairy farmers with a floor price to make sure they are going to start making money. And that's really, really important. The member for Hughes and his friend—I might just point out, there's a number of members on the opposite side talking about today—the member for Warringah are absolutely non-believers in climate change. I think they may still be debating whether the earth is flat or round. I think there are some sceptics as well on the opposite benches because it is not something we hear about from them when we are talking about climate change. I'd like to refer those sceptics when we're seeing these extreme weather events, not just drought but also flood. Let's just remember, it's not just about the warming planet; it's about these extreme weather events that really hit our farmers hard. I want to put on record an article that was published by Wayne Johnston, who is president of the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association, the TFGA. It was published in last week's edition of Tasmanian Country. It's really important to put this on Hansard. It said: Fundamentally, one of the key pillars of farming is the weather. We plant to the seasons, we harvest to the seasons, and our success depends upon having reliable and consistent weather patterns. Anyone farming in Tasmania knows that these fundamentals can no longer be relied upon. In the past five seasons alone we have seen some of the wettest and the driest and some of the hottest conditions this state has experienced in living memory. No one farming community in Tasmania is under any illusions about the fact that our climate is changing and the impact on our capacity to produce food is very real. Accepting climate change has never really been the issue. It is high time we have some sensible conversations around this issue not only for the present, but for our children and grandchildren's sake. It does not serve anyone, or the community, for this issue to remain as politicised as it is. The risks to agriculture alone are significant. Modelling suggests that rainfall patterns and existing seasons will alter. This alone will directly impact on what we grow and where we grow it. The biosecurity risks associated with a change in climate are in many ways the most significant. Invasive species such as weeds and animals will find it easier to establish in a warming Tasmanian climate. And let's not forget the fruit fly issue we had in my electorate in particular; that's because of our warming climate. The TFGA get it that climate change is real. They get it that we will have more extreme weather events. And they get that drought will become more prevalent. It was really pleasing today for me today to attend the launch of a new group, an alliance that was launched in parliament today, Climate Proofing Australia. It is a conservation and industry led alliance of organisations committed to advancing the role of agribusiness, conservation and natural resource management in Australia's climate change and emissions reduction policy. And it was pleasing that the agricultural minister attended this. The members are the Australian Forest Products Association, Farmers For Climate Action, Greening Australia and the Red Meat Advisory Council. They are concerned about climate change and what it means for our farmers. I think it's important that those opposite really get involved with this organisation if they truly believe they represent farmers. That's a very pleasing initiative that the farming community and other industries are taking. We do welcome the fact that the government has finally woken up to the need to do more to address drought. But, typically, this bill is smoke and mirrors. On the one hand, the Prime Minister wants to be seen to be doing something, but, on the other, the future drought fund which this bill proposes to establish won't come into effect until the year 2020-21. Farmers could be waiting for over two years for any support to help them adapt and tackle drought. This bill does not address the long-term policy and planning that is needed to assist our farmers and rural communities to manage drought. This side of the House thinks that we can do better. We've already given bipartisan support to the government to increase the farm asset threshold from $2.6 million to $5 million, to increase the Farm Management Deposits scheme to $800,000, to increase the Farm Household Allowance extension from three years to four years and to provide additional supplementary Farm Household Allowance payments of up to $12,000 for eligible allowance recipients. Those are just some of the things, and there have been a lot of issues prior to that. We've had to have massive arguments in this place just to get some support for farmers. Do they think farmers in financial crisis deserve face-to-face support or do they think they should be tied up for hours on end on the phone? That's one of the issues we heard about with the Farm Household Allowance system. The level that these farmers went through was just absolutely ridiculous, and some actually gave up. I've spoken in this place around what that's meant for some of the farmers who were trying to get some assistance, particularly through the dairy crisis. It was just extraordinary. I want to move now to irrigation projects. I heard the member for New England taking credit for irrigation projects in Tasmania. I mean, seriously! And he had a crack at the member for Lyons, who was sitting in the chamber, saying that he didn't support irrigation. I want to take this House back quite a while. This started under a state Labor government over 10 or 15 years ago, when we started Tasmanian Irrigation. We've had successive irrigation projects rolled out in my state, and they have been funded by Labor. The tranches that were then subsequently funded by this government, which we had to argue for and lobby for—even the state Liberal government had to put pressure on the government to fund it—were all Labor initiatives. For the previous Deputy Prime Minister to say that we don't support irrigation is just utter nonsense, and it's actually quite offensive. It's not just offensive to the Labor members in this place but also offensive to the Labor members of the state parliament, current and former. It's also offensive to the farmers who have invested their own money in those schemes—absolutely offensive! Every single irrigation project that is currently operational in Tasmania is a Labor project, funded and delivered by Labor or planned by Labor. Those opposite talk up a big game when it comes to drought proofing through irrigation, but their record in Tasmania has been abysmal. Under this government, we have had almost six years of no action and no vision. We already know that they're not serious about climate change. I really do hope that changes, but I don't have a lot of hope, sadly. They can't agree on an energy policy, for starters. They are also not serious about irrigation in Tasmania, nor are they serious about boosting the productivity of, and value adding to, the agricultural sector. Further evidence of the mismanagement of the decisions made by the previous member—there's a lot that he did that was not in the best interests of agriculture at all—is the abolition of the Standing Council on Primary Industries, or SCoPI. SCoPI was the COAG community for agricultural issues and was responsible for progressing the intergovernmental agreement on drought policy reform. It's so important to have that state and Commonwealth relationship. For the minister to abolish that was absolutely a terrible, terrible decision. The only people who got hurt in that were our farmers and our agricultural sector. That's something that I know that we will be supporting once we get back into government. I'm not sure which genius thought he could progress national drought policy without working with the states. That's the process to do that. (Time expired)
Disaster Relief Funding to Tasmania | Private Members' Business | House debates
I'd like to thank the member for Lyons for bringing forward this motion and, also, the member for Franklin for sharing her experiences and sharing the devastation that hit her electorate in...
I'd like to thank the member for Lyons for bringing forward this motion and, also, the member for Franklin for sharing her experiences and sharing the devastation that hit her electorate in southern Tasmania. Unfortunately, bushfires have always been a part of our landscape in Tasmania, particularly over the warmer months. Even today, parts of mainland Australia and Tasmania continue to burn. In my state, the Tasmanian Fire Service still has alerts for 27 bushfires. At the height of the Tasmanian bushfire emergency there were 60 active fires across the state. Like all members in this chamber, I want to acknowledge and say thank you to all the emergency service workers, paid and volunteer, who fought very hard and continue to do so through these bushfires. I also want to say a big thank you to the army of volunteers in the community who are looking after those who have been impacted, whether it be with food or drink or just somewhere to stay. On behalf of the state of Tasmania I say thank you. I also thank all the interstate and overseas firefighters who came to our beautiful state. In my electorate of Braddon, which covers the north-west and west coast of Tasmania, we had multiple fire fronts throughout late January. Fires were burning on the west coast near Zeehan, in remote areas at Pieman Heads and at Brittons Swamp at Circular Head. The fires near Zeehan required an enormous firefighting effort. Roads were closed and people were evacuated. As well as destroying thousands of hectares of forest and protected areas, the west coast fires have had a major effect on local businesses. The community of Strahan is the gateway to the Franklin-Gordon Wild Rivers National Park. It's the most beautiful place on this planet. In January and February you expect all the visitors coming to Tasmania to at least get over there, but, sadly, with the road closures, local businesses have suffered. I'm, sadly, aware of one operator who lost $5,000 in bookings in just that very short period of time. I'm also aware that, in many cases, businesses were reduced to winter staffing levels, as people simply could not get there or had the perception that all of Tasmania was on fire and cancelled their bookings. It is not the case now. I encourage everyone to come and visit, particularly the west coast of Tasmania and the far north-west. You will not be disappointed. The west coast fires are still active, but now burn deeply underground. Firefighters are physically digging the fire out of the ground to extinguish it. While some property has been destroyed, as the member for Franklin has stated, the fact that not a single life was lost is a great credit to all involved. However, large amounts of productive forests, farmland and high-value conservation areas have been destroyed. One phenomenon we have seen is alpine forests destroyed. Sadly, these forests do not regenerate like eucalypt forests do. Clearly we need to learn from these fire events. Following the devastating 2016 bushfires in the Arthur-Pieman Conservation Area on the far north-west coast I recall concerns raised by local firefighters about their inability to properly fight fires due to environmental restrictions. The depth to which machinery could dig to construct firebreaks was limited. It resulted in the fire causing more damage to a protected area than it would have otherwise. A familiar story has been raised this time by the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association, the TFGA. The TFGA has raised concerns that in the early stages of these current fires in some cases firefighters could not use bulldozers to put in containment lines in World Heritage areas or privately owned conservation areas. They've called for a review of strategies used in conservation areas and a greater focus on fuel reduction burns. I'm sure that after these fires the relevant agencies will come together to review what worked well and what could be improved. I join with the TFGA and local firefighters from my electorate to call upon the state and the federal governments to seriously take on board what are valid concerns. I don't think there is any argument that there will be more of these extreme weather events and, unfortunately, very sadly, more bushfires. What we must do is have the mechanisms in place to allow our firefighters to deal with these emergencies to minimise the risk to life and damage to property and to provide greater protection of our most beautiful natural environment.
Shipping | Statements by Members | House debates
Yesterday, I had the pleasure of attending the naming ceremony of Toll's new Australian flagged and Australian crewed vessel, Tasmanian Achiever II. It's Australia's biggest cargo ship, and,...
Yesterday, I had the pleasure of attending the naming ceremony of Toll's new Australian flagged and Australian crewed vessel, Tasmanian Achiever II. It's Australia's biggest cargo ship, and, together with the new Victorian Reliance II, will increase the freight task on Bass Strait by 40 per cent at a cost to the company of $300 million—a wonderful investment. It is one of 12 ships, Australian crewed and Australian flagged, left in Australia. What do we see on these ships? We see local jobs for people in my electorate. I was joined yesterday by the Prime Minister, and I felt a level of hypocrisy. Why is that? That's because this government is responsible for the sacking of hundreds of seafaring jobs in this country. Eighty workers on the Mariloula and the Lowlands Brilliancewere recently sacked by BHP—thank you to the Prime Minister! I met Jimmy last year. He had been at sea for 15 years, with 10 of those on the Mariloula. He is now unemployed, replaced by foreign crews. I call on the government and I call on the Prime Minister to support what I have been saying, and that is to protect the Bass Strait from their destructive agenda and to join with Labor to investigate a strategic fleet of Australian flagged and crewed ships to protect our national interests. If he does not do so, it is bad for business. It is bad for the exporters from Tasmania. It is bad for local jobs in my electorate and across this country. There are seafaring families that rely on these jobs.
Fuel Security | Constituency Statements | House debates
I rise today to highlight a critical issue to Tasmanian businesses, the Tasmanian community, the Tasmanian economy and Australia as a whole, and I would think everyone would want to listen to...
I rise today to highlight a critical issue to Tasmanian businesses, the Tasmanian community, the Tasmanian economy and Australia as a whole, and I would think everyone would want to listen to what I have to say. We currently have a fuel security emergency on our hands, yet this government is doing nothing about it. I will note there is a Liberal senator, Senator Molan, and a Liberal backbencher, the member for Canning, who do understand what I have to say, which is pleasing, and I wish there were more who would listen to them. The government's own statistics show current reserves of fuel diesel, jet fuel and petrol sit at three weeks or less, and that includes the supply sitting out at sea on vessels. This is in contravention of the International Energy Agency's 90 day fuel stockholding obligation that has been in place since March 2012. In simple terms: as a nation, we are meant to have three months supply here on the continent; instead, we have just three weeks. There are a number of factors at play here, including the closure of four Australian petroleum refineries and the loss of a domestic shipping fleet to transport fuel to and from this country. Our fuel supply is at the mercy of the boardrooms of overseas countries, which is an absolute shame. In my electorate, we have seen these decisions at work. The Alexander Spirit, when docked in Devonport, my home town, in 2015, had its crew sacked, to be replaced by foreign labour in Singapore. And who gave the permit to allow that to occur? This Liberal government. This decision has meant that Tasmania is now entirely dependent on international ships with foreign crews to supply our fuel. Nationally, this emergency, the lack of Australian-crewed ships, potentially has enormous ramifications. What happens in a time of conflict when the government needs to requisition ships to supply the Navy and the nation with fuel? Where will they come from? The simple answer is: nowhere, because, under this government, there will not be an Australian ship supporting an Australian effort. Also, what happens if there is another global financial crisis and international credit markets collapse, tying up foreign ships? That could happen, based on the situation with some of these international shipping countries. You could have a ship out at sea with fuel to come to Australia; that ship needs support, and nothing happens with that fuel. And then, again, Australia has three weeks fuel here. Short-sighted and ideological policy decisions from this government could see Australians paying a very heavy price. Earlier this week, I called upon this government to abandon the flawed coastal shipping legislation they're proposing, as it will potentially open Bass Strait up to more foreign-flagged ships. Tasmanian Senator Colbeck responded that the government's proposals were good for business. But his logic is flawed beyond belief. As an island state, Tasmania absolutely relies upon reliable shipping services, and Bass Strait is Tasmania's social and economic lifeline. It's about time that this government woke up, for the good of the Tasmanian economy and for our farmers and producers. (Time expired)
Energy | Questions without Notice | House debates
My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that under his discredited forced divestment laws the government could force Tasmania to sell off its state owned electricity...
My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that under his discredited forced divestment laws the government could force Tasmania to sell off its state owned electricity assets. When so many Tasmanians are already doing it tough, why does the Prime Minister want to make life even harder by privatising Tasmania's electricity assets, which will put up power prices?
Tasmania: Energy | Statements by Members | House debates
This government claims its policy—and might I say lack of—is driving down power prices. I'm not sure what planet it's on, because power prices in Tasmania are going up and up under a...
This government claims its policy—and might I say lack of—is driving down power prices. I'm not sure what planet it's on, because power prices in Tasmania are going up and up under a state and federal Liberal government, hurting Tasmanian families and businesses. John Dabner, a tourism operator in my electorate of Braddon, has said publicly that his business power bill jumped by $50,000 in the past year to $150,000. A local Tassie farmer reports his business's power bill has increased by 30 per cent, that's $30,000, to what he expects next year to be $100,000 a year. If this trend continues, Tasmanian businesses have said they'll have no choice but to shut their doors, costing jobs and costing the local economy. Tasmanian energy consultant Mark White has stated, 'Job losses are inevitable in some sectors in my state due to skyrocketing power prices.' The lack of a clear national energy policy is hurting Tasmanian businesses, threatening jobs and our economy. Tasmanian families and businesses are paying the price for the Liberal government's chaos, division and dysfunction. Yet, on this side, Labor has a clear and comprehensive energy policy that will grow jobs in Tasmania, boosting our economy and putting downward pressure on power prices. My electorate will greatly benefit, because we will create a renewable energy zone in the north-west of Tasmania building more wind farms, Minister—the things you hate.
Questions in Writing | Questions to the Speaker | House debates
Mr Speaker, under standing order 105(b), I refer to questions on notice Nos 1034 and 1035, which have been on the Notice Paper for 110 days. I kindly ask that you write to the relevant ministers...
Mr Speaker, under standing order 105(b), I refer to questions on notice Nos 1034 and 1035, which have been on the Notice Paper for 110 days. I kindly ask that you write to the relevant ministers seeking reasons for the delay in answering these questions.
Fair Work Amendment (Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2018; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I welcome the opportunity to speak on the legislation before the House, the Fair Work Amendment (Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2018. It is quite disappointing though that it does not...
I welcome the opportunity to speak on the legislation before the House, the Fair Work Amendment (Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2018. It is quite disappointing though that it does not go far enough. It's heartening to hear my colleagues on this side of the House talk about the reasons why this piece of legislation doesn't go far enough to support those victims of domestic violence who, as we know, are predominantly women, predominantly on lower incomes, who do need paid leave of at least 10 days to ensure they can do what they need to do to make their lives better not just for themselves but for the children they may have in their care. We know the facts of domestic violence in this country and we know how shocking it is. We know that every single week in this country at least one woman is killed by a partner or a family member as a result of domestic violence. It is a national crisis. This government has been slow to act on this. When you have around 800,000 women in this country experiencing violence at home this year, it is quite shameful that this government is not taking this matter seriously in supporting the victims of family violence. This piece of legislation was introduced on 13 September. It has taken until now, December, to debate it. This legislation was on the books to debate all last week, with one member of the government speaking on it. It saddens me that that is the case with this parliament on such an important issue. The minister at the time said that they would introduce legislation as soon as possible to extend the same entitlements that other workers have to access family and domestic violence leave. That was in March this year. We're now at the end of the year, in the last sitting week, and we're just getting around to debating this. Hopefully, we'll have this debated today. Labor recognises how hard it is for victims of domestic and familial violence to leave a relationship. It's heartening to hear people on this side, my colleagues, express their understanding of this issue and what we will do to support those people that are experiencing domestic violence with 10 days paid leave. We know how long it can take for victims and their children to recover from domestic violence. There are sacrifices and challenges for surviving family members. Meeting with police, lawyers, real estate agents, schools and doctors all takes time. All those services are available during the work day. Counsellors, schools and childcare centres all operate within business hours. It takes hours upon hours to find somewhere new to live, pack up belongings, move to a new house, find a new school or childcare arrangements, and talk to children's support groups, doctors, counsellors and teachers. That all takes time, and that all happens during a work day. Changing bank accounts and other financial arrangements, appointments with Centrelink to apply for or change personal benefits, meetings with police and lawyers to apply for protection orders and, of course, attending court hearings all take place during working hours. The victim has to take time off work to do these things to keep themselves and their family safe. They should be able to count on continuing to receive an income and being able to go back to work. To escape a violent relationship, victims have to take that time off work. There is absolutely no other way around it. The Senate did an inquiry into this legislation, and one of the bodies giving evidence was the Australian Human Rights Commission. The government senators' report mentions the interaction with work. The report says: Financial security can be a critical determinant of victims' ability to escape violent and abusive relationships. Employment improves affected workers' ability to remove themselves and their children from abusive family relationships and maintain, as far as possible, a decent standard of living. So my question is: why should a victim of family violence be financially impacted because they are a victim of family violence? Why is that the case? It's pleasing that so many businesses in this country are supporting what Labor will do if elected, providing 10 days of paid leave, because they understand that a victim of family violence should not be financially disadvantaged because of what they have to go through. We know that the most dangerous time for a woman, or any victim of family violence, is when she or he is leaving a violent relationship. Without paid leave, victims simply don't have time or resources to find a new safe place to live. We on this side see and understand how difficult it is, and we understand the costs: removalists, new utility connections, new phone lines, lawyers, rental property bond plus rent paid in advance, court costs, child care, counselling, and new house set-up with appliances, food and furniture. Family violence victims are telling us what they need, and Labor is listening to what they need. To leave, they need 10 days of paid leave. In my electorate of Braddon, family violence is, sadly, very prevalent. I come from a place where multigenerational family violence has been happening for decades and is still happening today. Victims have less opportunity to escape. Traditionally, we just haven't had the services available. We don't have enough lawyers. Many of our residents are isolated, with less public transport. They are in regional spaces where many just aren't aware of services and options. As a result, family and domestic violence in regional areas like Tasmania's north-west is highly complex and will often take the victims a lot longer to process. With limited services and long waiting lists, the trauma increases and is compounded. Clients of organisations like the Burnie office of Women's Legal Service Tasmania often require numerous appointments with a counsellor before enough trust is built so they can feel safe enough to share their experiences. These clients often have to travel a long way just to sit down with someone for an hour to talk about their domestic violence experiences. I would like to at this point pay tribute to the departing CEO of the Women's Legal Service, Susan Fahey, for the amazing work that she has been doing in this space for about 16 years in the Women's Legal Service and her strong advocacy on issues like this. I wish her all the best in what happens for her in the new year. The people who come to services like the Women's Legal Service come from all walks of life. They come from all sectors across the workforce in my electorate, whether it be mining, forestry, dairy or tourism. They are people who are suffering significant trauma, shame and fear and are dealing with the enormous stigma that is still attached to these experiences. In situations of domestic and family violence, a child's safe place should be their school; for adults, it should be and is their place of employment. Adults may feel that they have nobody else in their life whom they can trust enough to disclose their situation to. For many victims, their workplace is their only support mechanism. Their work colleagues, and sometimes their employer, may be their only support in these situations. Among the claims as to why the government is not putting forward paid leave is the impact on small business. But I doubt whether there would be very many employers who would not want to value their staff and support them in any way possible—and giving them paid leave is the best way to do that. They come to work sometimes after being up all night, not only because of being terrified and terrorised by an abusive or drunken partner but also because of dealing with children who are frightened and confused. They come to work to feel safe, but often their capacity to do the job is impacted: they become unreliable in getting to work, or they start making mistakes at work. A national employment standard that offers a victim five days of unpaid leave is inherently cruel and is moving well behind the pace that is currently being set by many employers on this issue. It is not safe, it is not supportive, and it is using a system as a means to perpetuate the violence. The minute an employer says, 'Here are your five days of unpaid leave to attend court,' they are penalising the victim. This legislation will make it even harder on domestic violence victims, and easier on domestic violence perpetrators. It will impact on the organisational climate, and on an employee's sense of wellbeing in their workplace. It lacks compassion and it lacks understanding across the entire community. What this government is offering is a belated effort and, frankly, it's completely inadequate. The Minister for Women has said: People do have access to personal and carers leave … people do have the ability to take unpaid leave … Under this government, that's the price you pay for being a victim of family violence. The former Minister for Women is on the record as saying that domestic violence leave would be a 'perverse disincentive' to employ female workers. I mean, that's just ridiculous. What happens with the extra six million predominantly women workers that this leave will cover? Does it mean that they're not going to be employed, because they are going to take unpaid leave? Those extra six million workers will be covered, regardless, under this new legislation. But how many are likely to come forward and seek the support required from their employer if their employer makes the process difficult for them to come forward at all? They are faced with choosing between getting help or toughing it out and paying the bills. There was a dissenting report put forward with the Senate report on this issue. Rape and Domestic Violence Services Australia gave evidence that one in four Australian households possess less than $1,000 in cash savings, whilst people suffering from family and domestic violence suffer a 25 per cent loss of income associated with abuse. Victims are therefore more likely to experience food insecurity, struggle to find affordable housing, and are less likely to be able to cover the basic essentials like utility bills. Rape and Domestic Violence Services Australia stated—and this is in the report—that paid leave is essential in achieving safety for victims. But what is this government doing by not giving that leave to over six million Australian workers? Workers should not be forced to choose between an income and safety. I think that's the crux of what we're talking about here today. We should also acknowledge the work that we've been doing on this side of the House. The government seem to think that the only option for a victim of family violence is to leave the home, and that, under this government, they have the right to access superannuation early. This is a cost to that person, which may be helpful in the short term but in the long term is a cost, because that money will no longer be there for them in retirement. But if they had paid leave, they wouldn't necessarily have to dip into their superannuation. We know that the victims of family violence are predominantly women and that they have less money in their superannuation funds, but that's the option which the government have put forward. They also put forward an increase in Good Shepherd Microfinance under the No Interest Loan Scheme, which, again, is a good incentive for people who need to maybe buy a new fridge. But there is this perverse understanding that all victims of family violence must leave the home. Therefore, most victims of family violence are women, they have low and less income, and they're going to go into debt for a considerable period of time to pay off this loan because they need to leave the home. On the other hand, while Labor are supportive of these measures, they certainly do not address the issue that not all victims of family violence should leave the home and should be financially worse off for doing so. I'm really pleased that Labor will not only invest $18 million over three years to ensure that Keeping Women Safe In Their Home continues after the government had confirmed it was cutting funding to the program—this is a program to keep victims of family violence in their homes—but also commit to a new 10-year plan for reducing violence against women and their children. I think this is important to note, because the government doesn't seem to really understand that it's also important for women and victims of family violence to feel safe in their homes. This program will provide practical help for women and children in their homes, allowing them to live safely away from perpetrators, through expert safety assessments and safety planning; home safety upgrades and devices such as new locks, alarms, cameras and safety phones; screening for bugs to ensure privacy; and supporting women in enforcing apprehended violence orders. Everyone deserves to feel safe in their home. Women should not have to choose between their homes and their safety, and neither should their children. This is something that the government seems to not take any notice of—that women who are on less income and less superannuation under the policies they've put forward would be financially worse off. They would not be supported to stay at home. They would not be supported to earn an income whilst they're dealing with matters to address the violence they have been subject to. Safety shouldn't be conditional on where you work. We on this side recognise and acknowledge those employers already offering the support of paid leave to their employees—employers like Houston's Farm in Tasmania, the first privately-owned business in the state to offer paid leave to employees affected by domestic and family violence. In Tasmania, around 50 cases of domestic violence are reported each week. Houston's Farm recognises that, as an employer of over 200 workers, they too share a responsibility to recognise and respond to these issues. Paid leave is offered to both the victims of domestic violence and those who are accused of perpetrating it, and this is paid leave that Labor supports fully. Perpetrators need to access the same paid leave as victims. This needs to be available to everyone, irrespective of gender identification or who is experiencing domestic or family violence. They need to get help; they need money to do that, and only those on this side of the House will acknowledge that support and provide it, if we are fortunate enough to form government next year.
Pensions and Benefits | Matters of Public Importance | House debates
The member for Mallee gave us a little bit of a tutorial on how government finances work and how budgets work. But, clearly, when governments have money they put it into areas that are their...
The member for Mallee gave us a little bit of a tutorial on how government finances work and how budgets work. But, clearly, when governments have money they put it into areas that are their priorities. Under this government, older Australians are certainly not a priority. In my electorate of Braddon, I have a disproportionately high number of older Australians in my community. There are approximately 15,000 age pensioners, and many, many more waiting to go onto the age pension in the coming months and years. But what we've seen under this government are constant attacks on older Australians. Every single time, Labor has fought against those attacks. What we're seeing now inflicted on our older Australians are these ridiculous delays in processing age pension payments, absolutely ridiculous delays. I don't know how many on that side hear from people in their communities about these delays. We never hear people on the other side tell stories of their constituents who come to their office for support, but I feel a bit like a pseudo Centrelink office. People come to me when they're at their wits' end. We know that they are spending their savings while waiting for their payments to be processed. If they don't have savings, what are they doing? How are they surviving? This government doesn't really seem to care that these people are waiting and waiting. The minister talked about processing times, the target time and so forth, but that is not the reality out in voter land at all. I have many stories of people in my community who have come to me at their wits' end. In May I heard from Marsha from Boat Harbour, who waited seven months to receive her age pension. She kept contacting Centrelink—when she could actually get through—asking, 'What else do I need to provide you?' They said: 'Nothing. You don't need to give us anything else. You just have to wait. There are some delays.' Then there are Annette and her husband from Wynyard, who made an application in July and were informed that their payment would be made on 18 September. That seemed okay, a two-month wait. They could probably wait that out. But, after that, they continually received messages from Centrelink advising them that there was a backlog of applications and there would be a further delay. Four months from the application date, two months after the original advised payment date, Annette and her husband's pension was finally granted, and that was because of my intervention. I'm sure every member on this side has intervened at every opportunity they can to help people access their pension payments. Geoff from Port Sorell applied for his pension on 28 April this year. After contacting Centrelink on 4 August, four months after lodgement date, to check on what was happening—as you would—he was told he should expect another three to four months delay. Geoff was told that, as he had money in the bank, his modest savings, he would just have to wait a bit longer. I mean, how unfair is this? These people are making decisions to end their employment, to go onto the age pension, they get everything organised, they wait a few months thinking, 'This is okay; I can live with that,' but then are told, 'Oh, no, you've got to wait even longer still.' It shouldn't have to come to that. I remember doorknocking during the by-election recently when I met Gary from Burnie. I knocked on his door and he said: 'I have been waiting four months for my pension. I don't have any money left. What am I to do?' I said, 'I can help you with that,' but he said, 'I shouldn't have to come to my MP to help me get a payment that I have been waiting four months for.' This is what the people on the other side don't seem to understand. This is because this government has continued to trash Centrelink staffers, to demonise those workers in our public sector. They're privatising Centrelink by stealth. They're putting people on contracts in labour hire companies—people who are paid less, who are casualised, who don't have security of work, who are dealing with complex Centrelink applications—when we have a public sector who are trained well, who are very, very competent, who are mostly in regional communities like mine. I know the member for Bass has a number of Centrelink staff there as well. But this government wants to privatise that service. What will Labor do? In my electorate there are 30 empty Centrelink desks—30. We will employ 50 public sector workers to fill those desks. Five of those will be roving Centrelink staff so that they can go to the communities, because not everyone can get on the internet. Not everyone has a computer, nor do they have access, particularly in regional Australia—and I think the regional members would appreciate that. Those staff could go to areas like King Island, Circular Head, the west coast of Tasmania and help those people with complex Centrelink needs and make sure they get their payments processed on time.
Braddon Electorate: Blue Hills Honey | Statements by Members | House debates
It's no secret that my electorate of Braddon is home to some of Australia's best producers. In 1960, Blue Hills Honey, located in the far north-west town of Mawbanna, out in the hills behind...
It's no secret that my electorate of Braddon is home to some of Australia's best producers. In 1960, Blue Hills Honey, located in the far north-west town of Mawbanna, out in the hills behind Smithton, was the first Australian company to export honey to Japan. In 2004 they were the first Australian producer to introduce the industry-initiated B-QUAL quality program based on hazard analysis and critical control point principles. And in 2018 they've been recognised as the Tasmanian Export Awards winner, and are now a national finalist in the 56th Australian Export Awards, in the category of regional exporter. This successful family business of three generations is competing on the global stage and sending its products to more than seven countries. It increased its honey exports by 45 per cent in 2017-18, despite its production being hit by bushfires in January 2016. Blue Hills Honey is all about innovation. Their Japanese sales increased by 700 per cent after developing products such as honey-flavoured mouth spray, pet care products and single-use sachets. It's my great pleasure to congratulate Nicola and Robbie Charles and their staff for these fantastic achievements. But the Australian honey industry must be protected. The honey 'launderers', who are tainting the integrity and reputation of our honey industry by exposing consumers to blended honey, are infiltrating our markets, frustrating customers and producers alike. I call on the government to act on the ACCC's call for Australia to develop an agreed approach to honey testing, and I call on this government to act now.
Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Every State and Territory Gets Their Fair Share of GST) Bill 2018; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
This is an extremely important topic for my state of Tasmania. I would like to reiterate some of the comments of the member for Griffith in saying that this side of the House, Labor, have been...
This is an extremely important topic for my state of Tasmania. I would like to reiterate some of the comments of the member for Griffith in saying that this side of the House, Labor, have been very united in our position on GST distribution for all states. While working through some very challenging state-by-state situations, we've come together in a most unified way. I have to say that the history of this debate has been very long and very tortuous for states like mine, Tasmania. We have a government whose position—even when the Liberal Party were in opposition—has changed so rapidly, and now to something based on what Labor has been proposing. We've been consulting with states, consulting with each other and making our position very, very clear for the people of Australia. But when we've put forward policy positions on this, ways forward to deal with some of these challenges, we've met with considerable opposition from the Liberal Party, whether in opposition or in government. That has not given anyone in this country confidence in the Liberals' ability to put forward a proper solution for the GST and the way it's dealt with by each state. That's been an absolute shame, because on this side we've been very consistent. As to the other side, none of the states, like Tasmania, have any confidence that they wouldn't be worse off under this government. Labor worked constructively with Western Australia in particular, in recognition of their position and the challenges they have been facing. But, equally importantly, Labor worked constructively to ensure that my state, Tasmania, would not be worse off. I can't say that that's been the case for the coalition. It's been a GST merry-go-round where on any given day the policy of the coalition has changed: changing the distribution to a per capita arrangement, increasing the GST, establishing a Productivity Commission inquiry, opposing but then supporting a floor price, and opposing legislation to ensure no states are worse off. And now this is where we find ourselves today. As I've said, this issue is incredibly serious for the state of Tasmania. It's critical because of the revenue that comes to Tasmania through the current method of distribution, horizontal fiscal equalisation. It is a system designed to ensure that all states and territories are treated equitably. In 2018-19 Tasmania's total general government revenue is expected to be approximately $6.2 billion. Tasmania's largest source of revenue is GST revenue, estimated to be almost $2.5 billion in 2018-19, or approximately 40 per cent of the state's total revenue, which is quite considerable. This is a larger proportion than any jurisdiction other than the Northern Territory. Putting this into perspective, the current distribution of revenue represents 54 per cent of Tasmania's health expenditure or 71 per cent of education expenditure. So Tasmania's front-line services are incredibly reliant on GST revenue. More broadly, Tasmania's revenue sources underscore the state's reliance on all Commonwealth payments, including the GST, representing more than 60 per cent of state revenue. So you can see that Tasmania's not in a great position to start generating its own revenue. This government, and maybe the future Productivity Commission report, might suggest that Tasmania starts selling off state assets, which would be a short-term fix but diabolical for the state. So any reduction in revenue to Tasmania will see devastating consequences to our schools, hospitals, police force, emergency services and the like. Let's put this into the context of what we're facing in Tasmania now. Our hospitals are already in crisis. This is due to state and federal Liberal budget cuts. Only very recently a leaked report stated that Tasmania is facing a $100 million underspend just in health. Our school retention rates and tertiary education rates are some of the lowest in yet. Yet for the last six years the coalition has threatened Tasmania's fair share of GST revenue. The alarm bells for my state of Tasmania have been ringing since April 2012. The then opposition leader, the member for Warringah, visited Western Australia; and he then backed Colin Barnett, who was calling for the GST to be distributed on a per capita basis. Imagine what that would mean for the small state of Tasmania, with a population not much bigger than that of Geelong. This is what that member had to say at the time: 'I think that it does seem quite unfair that the people of Western Australia get so little back for their GST revenue that they provide to the rest of the country.' That's fair enough. But then he continued: 'I think that what ought to be very seriously considered by the government right now is a proposal that the GST revenue should be distributed on what is closer to a per capita arrangement. I think that makes a lot of sense.' Sadly, that make absolutely no sense for the state of Tasmania at that time. That little thought bubble would have meant that WA, quite rightly, would have received an extra $2.4 billion but Tasmania would have been $700 million worse off—that's considerable for the size of our budget and our reliance on our GST revenue—which is the equivalent of $1,300 per person worse off. It would have meant that we would have had to cut a lot of services—fewer teachers, fewer nurses. It was during the fallout of the global financial crisis, which hit Tasmania hard and a lot later than other states. Like the good soldier and supporter that he is, the great political genius Senator Eric Abetz poured further fuel on the fire when in March 2013 he said, 'The coalition might move closer to a per capita distribution.' What a good champion for Tasmania Senator Abetz is! In May 2013 Tasmanian Labor launched a 'Hands off our GST' campaign. From that point, the coalition ran dead on the issue in the lead-up to the 2013 general election. Things remained quiet until July 2015, when the Prime Minister and the now member for Warringah thought it would be a good idea to start debate about an increase in the GST itself. The member for Warringah said that changes in the tax mix were on the table and he would prefer to look at overhauling the GST rather than increasing the Medicare levy—this from the man who famously promised no cuts to health and education and, of course, said there would be no changes to the GST. We all know that was a bit of a falsification, as we know from history. Prime Minister Abbott then said he was pleased that former New South Wales Premier Mike Baird had proposed raising the GST to 15 per cent because, in his words, the tax was 'a joint exercise by the Commonwealth and the state'. There was another gem from the member for Warringah after a COAG meeting: 'I'm not ruling things in, I'm not ruling things out, but my preference would be to consider the GST issue rather than the Medicare levy issue.' History now records what happens to the member for Warringah in September 2015 but it seems that under the leadership of the former member for Wentworth and his newly minted Treasurer—who is now this week's Prime Minister—the plans to increase the GST remained. In November 2015, in a speech to the Melbourne Institute's economic and social Outlook Conference, it was reported that the Treasurer gave the strongest hint yet that the Turnbull government planned to swap income tax increases for increases in the goods and services tax. The debate continued over the Christmas and New Year period of 2015-16. On multiple occasions, the former Prime Minister and his so-called loyal Treasurer were given the opportunity to rule out an increase to the GST, but they chose not to. Finally, on 16 February 2016, the Prime Minister saw the writing on the wall and ruled out the government taking an increase in the GST to the next election—finally. That was another backflip. There are all of these backflips. But it was still under active consideration around the cabinet table, apparently. On that very same day his employment minister, Senator Cash, told the media: We haven't taken it off the table completely, not at all. This is just like juggling balls; I'm not quite sure where it's all going to land. The GST debate paused for the 2016 general election, conveniently. But, after a narrow election result, the Prime Minister and Treasurer still had a problem to resolve. Rather than take responsibility, they hived off the issue to the Productivity Commission to inquire into the effectiveness of horizontal fiscal equalisation and to make recommendations to improve the system. But Labor knew something had to be done to address the concerns of Western Australia and ensure that states—like mine, Tasmania—were not worse off. In August 2017, Labor leader Bill Shorten announced that a Labor government would invest $1.6 billion in the Fair Share for WA Fund, bringing Commonwealth funding for Western Australia up to the equivalent of a 70 cent floor. Crucially for states like mine, Labor's policy did not change the current GST distribution formula. This government then chose to ridicule Labor's plan while dithering themselves, not really having much of an answer. In October last year, the Productivity Commission released their interim report. The former Prime Minister and Treasurer had a golden opportunity to rule out any changes to the distribution of GST revenue that would reduce Tasmania's share. Instead, they chose not to. The Treasurer said that smaller states could require transition plans. In effect, that was an admission that Tasmania would be worse off. That's because the interim report revealed that Tasmania would be subject to a $168 million cut in one year alone. We would have to then beg and beg the Prime Minister and Treasurer of the day to give us a top-up each year. This $168 million cut that the Prime Minister and Treasurer were quite happy to pass on Tasmania, unless we begged hard enough, is equivalent to 1,600 teachers, 1,500 nurses or 1,300 police. The Tasmanian Treasury responded in no uncertain terms to the interim report, saying: Any reduction in revenue would have a significant impact on the State. Without any other funding from the Commonwealth this would mean either an 18 per cent reduction in expenditure on government services, or 18 per cent increase in State revenue from taxes, fees and dividends, or a combination of both. Clearly this would create an unsustainable budgetary position for the State. The Government would have to decide how it would deal with the loss of revenue. Generally, there are three main options - a reduction in spending, an increase in own-source taxation revenue or an increase in State debt. The sale of State owned assets is an option which would only temporarily address the issue … This is what Tasmania was facing only very recently: the prospect of putting up more state taxes and cutting spending and services to very vital front-line services when our health system is terribly underfunded and our education outcomes are not great. Otherwise, we could just sell off our state assets, which Tasmanians cherish very much and very much want to stay in state-owned hands. Time and time again, between the release of the interim report and the final report, the coalition was given the opportunity to again rule out Tasmania being no worse off. Time and time again, they didn't. Finally, in June of this year, the Productivity Commission released their final report. What an absolute doozy that was. The former Prime Minister was full of assurances that Tasmania would not receive one cent less than what it receives now. But you have to put that into context over a period of time, in perpetuity. The prominent economist Saul Eslake's opinion of this was: Mr Turnbull's 'guarantee' implies that Tasmania's share of the GST pie would fall from 3.7 per cent to 3.2 per cent over that period. That would mean Tasmania getting $367 million or 13 per cent less in 2021-22 than it would if its share remained at 3.7 per cent. That was another diabolical result for Tasmania. You have to think what the Tasmanian state Liberal team were doing. They were doing absolutely nothing. They didn't say a word. They were just going, 'Yes, okay. We'll cop that.' In real terms, this meant that Tasmania's share of the GST pool would decline and the ability of the government to fund essential services would have been solely reliant upon the government of the day providing those top-up payments to my state. Foolishly, the Tasmanian Liberal Premier seemed happy to sign up to the new arrangements without actually seeing the detail. He and his Treasurer, Peter Gutwein, were assured by a phone call from the now Prime Minister, the Treasurer at the time—this is all getting a little bit confusing, isn't it? But how wrong they were. Labor and economist Saul Eslake were standing up for Tasmanians while Liberal Premier Will Hodgman fell silent. Mr Eslake called on the Premier to finally start protesting loudly on Tasmania's behalf along with other smaller states that stood to lose vast sums of revenue from this new arrangement. State and federal Labor called upon Premier Hodgman and Treasurer Gutwein to not accept a deal that was fundamentally against Tasmania's long-term interests. But, of course, we saw some unedifying scenes in August this year with yet another Prime Minister being rolled. It's all very confusing. But did the chaos over the GST end? No, it only worsened. First of all, we had the revelation that the Prime Minister abused the Tasmanian Treasurer during GST negotiations, calling him a mendicant. Then, in early October this year, despite arguing for months that there was no need to legislate a GST floor, the Prime Minister decided he would follow Labor's lead and propose the legislation. We welcomed the Prime Minister's backflip—there have been a lot of those over the years on this issue—but we remained concerned that a legislated guarantee was needed so that no state would be worse off. Again, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer rejected Labor's calls. Even after every single state and territory Treasurer united in calls on 3 October for the guarantee, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer refused to give it. I have to say that the Tasmanian state Liberals at that point were ready to cross the floor, bowing to the pressure of we Tasmanian backbenchers and Tasmanian Labor senators when we wrote to them to support the amendments that we were proposing to make sure that Tasmania would not be worse off. They finally said, 'We might actually cross the floor on that.' They actually took a bit of a stand. How long did it take those terrible Liberal senators to stand up for my state! That's a potted history of this government's backflipping on whether or not Tasmania should be worse off—with a Liberal Senate team not actually standing up for Tasmania but Labor arguing for six and a half years to make sure that my state and our services and the jobs of our teachers, our police and our nurses would be protected because we would have our fair share of GST revenue.
Payday Loans | Matters of Public Importance | House debates
We've all been there; we've all been there.
Irrigated Agriculture | Private Members' Business | House debates
I welcome this motion put by the member for Murray, because irrigation projects do make a considerable difference in regional Australia and, of course, in my state of Tasmania. Deputy Speaker...
I welcome this motion put by the member for Murray, because irrigation projects do make a considerable difference in regional Australia and, of course, in my state of Tasmania. Deputy Speaker McVeigh, as you and I were on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources, we saw a lot of irrigation making a huge difference in regional Australia. It improves production, if it's used efficiently and effectively. It's something I think we'll all be able to take back to our respective states and state governments that report on water efficiency. In my state of Tasmania, we have had significant investment in irrigation. The Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment in a recent submission to a legislative council inquiry into Tasmanian irrigation stated: Notwithstanding that less than 10 per cent of the state's agricultural land is irrigated, it produces 55 per cent of the gross value of Tasmania's agricultural production. Irrigated land is estimated to produce more than 10 times the value per hectare compared with improved agricultural land that was not irrigated. In my electorate, irrigation supports the dairy industry and a large number of crops, including potatoes, carrots, beans, peas, berries, poppies and pyrethrum. Sadly, Mr Deputy Speaker, we didn't get to go to Tasmania to see some of this magnificent irrigation at work. It is important to note that every single irrigation project that is currently operational in Tasmania is a Labor project delivered by Labor or planned by Labor. It was Labor under the leadership of Jim Bacon who launched Tasmania's water development plan in August 2001. It's not that well-known, but beyond the west coast of Tasmania there is a large rain shadow and, even as we speak, some parts of the east coast of Tasmania are drought declared. Labor's first project was to build the Meander Dam in the northern Midlands. In 2008, Labor established the Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd. Tasmania Irrigation developed schemes as public-private partnerships, working with private landholders to establish how much water was wanted. The cost of building a scheme was shared between the public and private sectors. It has been enormously successful. Tasmania Irrigation progress the schemes from feasibility assessment through to the construction and operational stages. State and federal Labor contributed $220 million for Tranche One projects. There are now eight operational schemes from Tranche One throughout Tasmania. At the time, Labor's irrigation program represented a public-private commitment of over $310 million. As stated earlier, these schemes change regional dynamics. For example, in Tasmania's Midlands scheme, farms reported that they would graze sheep for wool at around $200 a hectare, but with access to a reliable, secure supply of water they could switch to growing peas at $2,000 a hectare or poppies, worth anywhere from $2½ thousand to $4,000 per hectare. If you drive down the Midlands of Tasmania, you see the landscape has actually changed quite considerably. In my electorate, at Labor's Dial Blythe scheme at South Riana, 44 farmers grow crops including pyrethrum and poppies and now have highly productive dairy operations. The Dial Blythe area once lacked surety of water, and this scheme now resolves that issue. Tranche 2 schemes are now either complete or under construction. Some credit is due to previous state and federal governments for continuing to roll out Labor's vision for tranche 2 schemes in the Southern Highlands, Swan Valley and Duck River, which is in my electorate, but that's where the credit seems to end. This coalition government was elected in 2013 and the Tasmanian Liberal government in 2014, yet it wasn't until late January of this year and the lead-up to the state election that the state Liberal government announced tranche 3 for Tasmania's irrigation—almost four years of inaction and lack of vision. For the coalition it's five years of inaction and no vision. Tasmanian Irrigation identified a number of tranche 3 projects, many of which are in my electorate: Detention, Don, Flowerdale, Harcus and Sassafras. In total, there are 10 projects, with an estimated cost of around $500 million, and I welcome the fact that, after years of doing nothing, the Tasmanian government has finally submitted an application to infrastructure Australia for funding towards tranche 3. But I see this with a degree of cynicism that this has only happened in the lead-up to a federal election. If the state and federal governments were generally serious about building on Labor's work, this work should have been done some years ago. On this side of the House we have a proven record of delivering irrigation projects for Tasmania, and I am very confident that, if we are fortunate to be elected at the next federal election, Labor will continue to do just that.
Symonds, Mr Christopher | Statements by Members | House debates
Lake Michigan in the US is a far cry from the humble Inglis River in my electorate on Tassie's north-west coast, but that's exactly where Wynyard local Chris Symonds made his mark recently,...
Lake Michigan in the US is a far cry from the humble Inglis River in my electorate on Tassie's north-west coast, but that's exactly where Wynyard local Chris Symonds made his mark recently, competing in the 2018 Para World Sailing Championships, where he took out the men's single-handed Hansa 303 dinghy class race convincingly and brought home gold and the world champion title. Chris is no stranger to success and has picked up numerous titles over the years in both para events and open competitions, which include predominantly able-bodied competitors. Chris suffers from Kennedy's disease, a rare and progressive genetic condition which affects mobility and speech—but he doesn't let that hold him back. Once he hits the water, he has proved himself to be a threat to whomever he is racing against. Chris personifies true north-west coast grit and spirit. He is not able to walk 10 metres unaided and has limited strength in all areas of his body due to the effects of Kennedy's disease. But the correct equipment and support network around him mean that he is able to achieve outstanding results. I congratulate Chris and his team on this wonderful result for local sailing and I commend the Wynyard Yacht Club, Chris's home club, for their continued work in making the sport inclusive to people of all abilities. I had a wonderful time last year when I went out with Chris on the water in his special Hansa boat. It is certainly something that I could not compete in.
Tasmania: Health Care | Adjournment | House debates
Tasmania's health system is in crisis. We have elective surgery waiting lists blowing out day after day. People are waiting in pain in our emergency departments. The Royal Hobart Hospital has...
Tasmania's health system is in crisis. We have elective surgery waiting lists blowing out day after day. People are waiting in pain in our emergency departments. The Royal Hobart Hospital has triggered the highest level of internal emergency alert it can, level 3, which means a severe effect on flow activity, yet the Tasmanian state government and this Liberal coalition government are doing absolutely nothing to stem the flow of hurt and pain that the system is causing Tasmanians. And it keeps going on. From 1 November this government will be turning on the discrimination tap and denying older Australians Medicare rebates for GP-ordered knee MRIs. It is a measure that was introduced by the Prime Minister in his last budget as Treasurer. People living in regional areas, like my electorate of Braddon, will be forced either to wait in pain for an MRI until the next available appointment with a visiting specialist or travel long distances at their own cost to get an appointment. These people now face the expense of not one but two expensive specialist visits, one to get the referral for an MRI and the other to have the results reviewed. That is instead of having a GP order and review the scan. This costs Medicare many hundreds of dollars and costs the patient around $100 out of pocket for each specialist visit. While other medical specialists will be able to order knee MRIs, the Prime Minister's Medicare freeze has driven the average fee to see a specialist up to $85, and much more in many cases. The fee for an MRI sits at around $400 to $500. How is it fair that a 49-year-old can get a rebate but a 50-year-old can't? How is it fair that this ageist, discriminatory rationing system will affect around 80,000 Australians a year aged over 50? In my electorate I represent an ageing population, many of whom, like millions of Australians, do everything they can to keep fit as they get older. It is completely contradictory that we're constantly encouraging older Australians to stay healthy while at the same time making access to critical health care harder and more expensive for them. It just doesn't make sense. You could be forgiven for thinking that there would be no more important priority for any government than the health and wellbeing of its people, yet here is a government that is actively discouraging people from looking after their health, because of the associated costs. Making people pay specialist fees just to get a knee MRI so they can stay healthy is like an ageing tax for the over 50s. It isn't right. That is, of course, unless you're a sports star earning a six-figure salary, because, despite the push by this government to claw back costs, the provision remains open if you're over 50 and have had kicked a few balls in your time. We know that under this government Medicare will never be safe. We know that under this government our health system will never be safe. And now we know that under this government our older Australians' health will never be safe. The coalition government axed TAZREACH in 2016, resulting in people from the far reaches of my electorate—places like King Island, Circular Head and the west coast—being forced to travel five-plus hours to urban centres like Hobart, or even interstate, to medical appointments. The program was the difference between someone getting the care they needed or missing out. And here we are again staring down the barrel of this coalition's discriminatory health policy, watching as those opposite continue to hurt those who can least afford it. A Labor government will restore the funding to TAZREACH and invest a further $30 million in reducing Tasmania's elective surgery waiting list. Labor believes that supporting medical specialists' visits to regional and remote areas of Australia, including those of digital imaging specialists, will save people in these communities stress, time and the cost of travel and ensure that they get the health care they need. Providing a functional health system is what a good government does for its citizens. Does this government even have an alternative plan to ensure timely and affordable access to knee MRIs for those over 50? The government must come clean about what it has done with the $190 million in savings it's made from this policy cut and other changes. Until it does, Australians will rightly suspect that this is just another cut to health from the same government that introduced the GP tax, the Medicare freeze and the $715 million in cuts to public hospitals. This is just another hit in the guts to those Tasmanians who are waiting on the elective surgery waiting list, waiting for specialist appointments and waiting in our emergency departments, as Tasmania's health system is in a deep, deep crisis.
Shipping Registration Amendment Bill 2018; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Shipping Registration Amendment Bill 2018. It's a topic that I have spoken on a number of times in in place. As an island nation, our coastal shipping...
I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Shipping Registration Amendment Bill 2018. It's a topic that I have spoken on a number of times in in place. As an island nation, our coastal shipping fleet is a vital part of our nation's infrastructure. For an island state like Tasmania, my home state, it is even more critical. Over 99 per cent of Tasmania's freight volumes are moved by sea. The timely and efficiently movement of passengers and goods between Tasmania and the mainland not only means hundreds of local jobs but also supports key Tasmanian industries in the tourism, agriculture, forestry, aquaculture, mining and manufacturing sectors. Over 12.5 million tonnes of freight is moved through Tasmania's publicly owned ports, and forecasts indicate these volumes will increase. An additional $2.4 million of freight has moved through Port Latta, which is in my electorate. Eighty per cent of Tasmania's sea freight is for interstate trade. With only 17 per cent international exports, a small amount is direct overseas freight. The ports of Burnie and Devonport are Tasmania's two major freight ports and are based in my electorate. These ports are well serviced by three Australian owned and crewed shipping companies: Toll Shipping, which operates our of Burnie; SeaRoad and TT-Line, which both operate out of my hometown of Devonport. All three companies are investing in the Bass Strait route. Toll Shipping has announced that its two new Bass Strait freighters are expected to start operating on 1 March next year. The vessels will operate between Burnie and Melbourne and are purpose-built at a cost of $170 million. The project also includes $141 million to upgrade terminals, wharfs and berthing facilities at both ports. SeaRoad launched its $110 million Searoad Mersey II vessel in 2016. That lifted the operation's capacity by 62 per cent. TT-Line are also in the process of replacing its two Spirit of Tasmania ships with larger vessels to cater for increased passengers, vehicles and freight. At the moment, all three companies have the confidence to invest. Tasmania's maritime industry is part of our way of life. It is part of our who we are and of our heritage. Like hundreds, if not thousands, of Tasmanians, my family has a connection with the sea. My father was a seafarer on the Princess of Tasmania, the Empress of Australia and the Abel Tasman, whichsailed the Bass Strait between Sydney and Devonport and then Melbourne and Devonport. While this side of the House welcomes this legislation and will be supporting it, one has to question how long there will be a viable Australian shipping industry that will actually need ships to be registered. The actions of the coalition indicate that what they want to do is destroy Australia's shipping industry. It seems that their ideological bent against the Maritime Union of Australia has warped their logic. In their efforts to wipe out the MUA, it appears that they are prepared to wipe out Australia's shipping industry as collateral damage. When Labor was last in office, we took a number of steps to rebuild the Australia's shipping industry. We had a simple goal: more Australian seafarers, crewing more Australian flagged ships, carrying more Australian goods around the Australian coastline. Labor made a number of reforms that the shadow minister at the time and the member for Grayndler has articulated to the House. This included a zero-tax rate for Australian shippers and other regulatory changes to make things easier, including the establishment of a single national regulator. Labor reforms were about balancing the playing field. They were developed in consultation with the industry. We also established an international shipping register, allowing operators of Australian flagged vessels to employ mixed Australian and foreign crews on internationally agreed rates and conditions. Importantly, Labor's changes did not preclude the use of foreign vessels. They simply required firms needing to move freight between Australian ports to first seek out an Australian operator. When none were available, foreign vessels could be used so long as they paid Australian-level wages on domestic sectors. That all makes perfect sense and seems very fair. We also enacted the major first rewrite of the nation's maritime laws in almost a century, making sure that oil companies pay for any and all damages that their ships may cause. We also developed Australia's first National Ports Strategy. However, for Labor's suite of reforms to work, they needed time. In 2013, upon the coalition's election, those sitting opposite set about destroying the industry, with their first piece of legislation designed to open up our waters to foreign flagged ships with foreign crews. Notwithstanding the risks to national security, fuel security or the environment, the coalition was determined to wipe out the Australian shipping industry. They said that was not the case, but you only had to look at the regulatory impact statement that accompanied that legislation. That document confirmed that nearly all the savings expected to be produced by that legislation—88 per cent—was to come from shipping operators sacking their Australian crews and replacing them with cheaper foreign crews. Tasmanian owned shipper SeaRoad said at the time it could possibly be forced to replace local crews with foreign workers. There are people in my electorate working for SeaRoad—literally hundreds of them. SeaRoad was also concerned that this bill could ultimately lead to reduced services and increased prices. The government's own modelling on that bill anticipated that four of the six ships servicing Bass Strait would be foreign flagged if that bill were passed. That would have been a disaster for Tasmania. Fortunately, though, the Senate rightly blocked that legislation. We had hoped, by now, the government would have come to their senses. But, no, they are back at it again. A bill has shamefully passed this chamber putting Australian crewed vessels at a competitive disadvantage. If it passes the Senate, it will allow temporary licences for foreign flagged vessels to significantly vary their freight volumes and days they are carrying domestic freight, while at the same time making it almost impossible for an Australian general licensed ship to contest those movements. This means Australian shippers simply won't know what is being carried until after the event. In effect, this means any half-smart foreign operator and compliant local freight company can game the system to use foreign flagged ships. The end result would be that these proposed changes would make it easier for foreign ships with exploited crews to operate on the Australian coast. I've been accused when standing in this place and talking about Australia's maritime industry of only supporting the Maritime Union of Australia. But there are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs not just in Tasmania but across this country that would be lost because of this government's ideological attacks on our maritime industry. I will stand here every day to support those 400-plus workers associated with the maritime industry in my electorate. I will be here protecting their jobs. Bizarrely, this government did not even consult with Australia's peak shipping industry body, the Maritime Industry Australia Ltd, or MIAL, on this bill. MIAL membership includes Toll, SeaRoad, ANL, North West Shelf Shipping Service Company and BP Shipping, just to name a few. No Australian maritime business, except Carnival Australia, which is a cruise operator, were invited to participate in the consultation sessions on the changes to the coastal trading act. How can you possibly consult on shipping changes without actually speaking to the shipping companies? If the minister had consulted with MIAL he would have heard this, which is from MIAL's media release in September last year: … there is nothing in the Bill to assist Australian shipowners compete with foreign ships that have all but unfettered access to coastal trades. We held low expectations on that front and unfortunately haven’t been disappointed there. This is a damning indictment from Australia's peak shipping industry body on this bill. I have made a number of calls on this government in this place to give a 100 per cent guarantee that under its proposed legislative changes Tasmania's domestic sea freight task will continued to be serviced by Australian flagged and crewed ships across the Bass Strait. It is very concerning that, to date, not a single member of the coalition is prepared to give that guarantee, not even the Tasmanian Liberal senators. That's why there is not a Liberal member of the House of Representatives sitting opposite. But I once again make that call. If the government can give a guarantee Tasmania's fair share of the GST will remain, it should be able to give a guarantee that a shipping lifeline is secured. Each sitting week I look with interest at the legislative agenda for the Senate, and each week the coastal trading amendment bill does not appear. I guess that tells us the government do not have the numbers to get the legislation through. And why would they when the legislation contains provisions that would make it easier for Australian flagged ships to replace Australian crews and those very workers who are from my electorate? I will also be watching in the Senate how Tasmanian Nationals senator Senator Martin votes. Senator Martin is from my home town and was previously the Mayor of the City of Devonport, a city that has a very long seafaring tradition, with many workers in the city of Devonport attached to the maritime sector. Senator Martin is on the public record opposing changes to our coastal shipping laws. I would like to remind the senator and his new National Party colleagues what he has previously said on this issue as reported in The Advocate newspaper when Senator Martin stood at the last general election when he was still at that time formally the Mayor of the City of Devonport. This is from the newspaper article: Alderman Martin said an Australian presence in coastal shipping was needed. He is quoted directly in the article: "I don't believe in getting in cheap labour and losing Australian jobs over that," he said. Let's hope Senator Martin keeps his word to his community, which didn't elect him—he was put in there through the demise of Senator Lambie. But, if he wishes to be re-elected, he should stand up for those maritime jobs that are in the hundreds, if not thousands, in Tasmania. Senator Martin should also take note of correspondence that I received from local people in our community on this issue when debating coastal shipping legislation in August of this year. One such piece was from Callum, who is a local master mariner, and one that Senator Martin would like to continue to so-called represent. Callum says: I just watched the video of you— that's me— speaking against the Coasting Trading Amendments Bill in the House of Representatives and wanted to thank you for your passion and efforts in looking to secure the Bass Strait for future generations. I am a third generation Master Mariner. My late grandfather … came to Australia from Scotland as an Extra Master Mariner and became the first Principal of the Australian Maritime College. He was a key figure in establishing an amazing training facility— which is world renowned— and the subsequent high standard of Australian Seafarers, particularly Master Mariners and Deck Officers. He was then approached to become the principal of the World Maritime University in Malmo, Sweden. He was awarded an Order Of Australia for his achievements. My point is we are on the brink of losing all of his hard work and the hard work of many others. It would be absolutely devastating to lose the Bass Strait. The impact it would have on my family and many others in Tasmania, Victoria and Nationally would be monumental. Recently I received another piece of correspondence, from Monica, who wrote to me in response to an editorial in the local paper that was written to support maritime jobs: Dear Justine, … … … Finally, recognition of the impact on Tassie of the selling off of Australian coastal shipping and the jobs that go with it! I am a Cadet Engineer … I'm also studying at the Australian Maritime College in Launceston. When I finish my course I would like to have an ongoing job in the shipping industry and in Tasmania. It seems there would be little chance of that if the government's proposal to amend the existing Coastal Trading legislation goes ahead! I have read the draft ALP policy platform proposing "a strong Australian flagged shipping industry with a secure Australian workforce". Which is fantastic! … … … In the next election, will you as the Labor candidate for Braddon be campaigning for locally-crewed and owned shipping for Burnie & Devonport? Best wishes, Monica. I can assure both Monica and Callum that Labor will continue to campaign for locally crewed and locally owned shipping operations out of Burnie and Devonport. Their correspondence symbolises what I spoke about earlier many times in this place—the connection between the people of Tasmania and the sea. It's a connection that goes beyond transporting passengers and freight. I shudder to think what would happen if Tasmania were left to the mercy of foreign-flagged ships and crew, particularly in difficult economic times when volumes may not be as profitable as they are now. Do they just all leave and leave Australians' freight task to someone else to pick up? Maybe the state or federal government need to then go into their pockets. As I said at the beginning of my contribution, Labor will be supporting this bill. But the bottom line is that there is a very real difference between the two sides of politics when it comes to shipping. Labor strongly believes Australia needs a viable, competitive and growing domestic maritime industry. The coalition doesn't.