House debates

Monday, 18 February 2019

Bills

Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Measures No. 5) Bill 2018; Consideration of Senate Message

5:20 pm

Photo of Barnaby JoyceBarnaby Joyce (New England, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I believe one of the core tenets of the National Party has always been that a person in this nation can start from the bottom and transcend through the economic and social stratification of life to their highest level, limited only by their innate abilities. The reason for that is that it gives people the highest level of freedom in life—to be their own boss. Some people—and it's quite understandable, of course; this is probably the generality—will not be their own boss; they will work for major organisations or for government. But the kernel of what this nation is about is that people have that right, and it must be fundamental to what this nation is about that they cannot have that right interfered with by big government, big business or big unions.

The amendment to the Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Measures No. 5) Bill 2018 giving access to justice means that it is not the big chequebook that wins the argument; it is the just outcome that wins the argument. As such, the National Party—and, I must admit, I personally—have been fighting for so long to make sure it comes about. We did it with section 46(1AA) of the Trade Practices Act, the Birdsville amendment. We did it with our support and battle for the effects test, which the Labor Party—I have to remind them—fought against. That amendment was that an action be judged by its effect, not purely by the letter of the law. We did it with the National Party's support for divestiture powers. We get the absurd position from the Labor Party that they don't support divestiture powers. That is absolutely an article that says to a big company: 'If you don't listen to us'—like AGL did not listen to us when we were trying to make sure that people got fairer power prices—'we can, though we wish not to, break you into two.' By gosh, they listened to that! They listened to it so much that they had Photios, a senior operative of the Liberal Party, running around with Ms McNamara to make absolutely certain that it didn't get up. They did it by making sure it offended both the big unions, such as the Shop, Distributive And Allied Workers Association, and Coles and Woolworths, because one doesn't want their capacity to take union fees out of employees' wages questioned, and big business doesn't want its market power ever questioned. With small business there are a multitude, of course, in country towns in proportion to big businesses, because big businesses have centralised. So we are very aware of the high street of regional towns.

We are also very aware of the issues with farmers, and I might briefly tell you about one. One farmer, a big organisation, went into the specialty of providing one line of vegetable. It became so specialised that the large retailer came and said, 'This is the price we're going to pay you for it now.' It was completely unreasonable. They'd completely restructured their business, and the big retailer knew they had nowhere to go; they knew they had them over a barrel. At other places people have said: 'We want to explain our problems to you, but please don't tell anybody. We have been specifically warned that if you come onto our place they will not buy our produce.' These things are an offence to the Australian principle of being your own boss, of not being a serf in somebody else's kingdom.

I remember talking to a gentleman from IGA—no doubt it was the same one you were talking to—with regard to structuring this, and it made sense. I'd had it all the way through. I was never going to telegraph my punches but I was always going to vote for the side that supported this. It was vitally important. I do put it down to the pressure of the National Party that this is going to go through, without a shadow of the doubt; otherwise we'd be having the debate now. I believe this has to be part of a tranche of issues we need to address. This is one. Divestiture powers are the next. You cannot say you support every issue of the banking royal commission in principle but don't support the ultimate mechanism for making them respect the government, which is divestiture powers.

If we can get these things right, whether you're National Party, or Labor Party, or Independent, or Greens or Liberal Party, then we will still maintain that most precious gift that this great democracy gives us: the right of any individual, no matter what their education, no matter where they come from and no matter what town, to transcend the economic and social stratification of life to their highest level, limited only by their innate abilities.

Comments

No comments