Joel Fitzgibbon's recent appearances (OpenAustralia.org)
Valedictory | Parliamentary Representation | House debates
on indulgence—I congratulate the member for Parramatta on a very fine speech. While I've done so privately, this is my first opportunity in this place to congratulate you on your promotion...
on indulgence—I congratulate the member for Parramatta on a very fine speech. While I've done so privately, this is my first opportunity in this place to congratulate you on your promotion to high office. I know that you will do all you can to maintain the dignity of this House, a subject you know I'm very interested in. And I thank the whip and the member for Macquarie for allowing me to deliver a few thoughts this morning from this place. Of course, in COVID some of us don't have a permanent home in this chamber. I did contemplate seeking permission to share my thoughts from the dispatch box, where I spent most of my time here—sadly, the one nearer rather to me than the one closer to the member for New England—but then I thought it might be even more appropriate if I deliver my speech from this place where I delivered my first speech almost 26 years ago. For the interested of—I was going to say younger members—all members, other than a few of us, sitting immediately to my right was the Hon. David Beddall, former member for Rankin, just to my left was Ralph Willis, the former member for Gellibrand and former Treasurer, and directly in front of me was the Hon. Robert McClelland, still a great mate of mine, a former Attorney-General and now, of course, Deputy Chief Justice in the family court—or whatever it's called now after the most recent reforms. The member for Grayndler was roughly where the member for Lingiari was sitting. That's not a reflection of seniority in any sense. I think it's more a reflection of marginality, and, of course, Anthony Albanese had a very safe seat, and I think he delivered his first speech from that place as well. Sitting where he is now, of course, was Kim Beazley, and where the member for New England is was our newly elected Prime Minister, John Howard. It seems an eternity ago, and I suppose it was. They were very tough and dark days for the Labor Party. We had been reduced at that election to just 49 seats, and to put that into perspective or context for those who might be watching or listening, the Labor Party currently has 68 seats, and you need 76 seats to form that magic majority in this place, so we were a pretty small team. Heads were down and there was a lot of soul-searching going on around the place. But, interestingly, the class of '96 was a large class, numbering 11. I'll note that one of those 11 was our great mate Greg Wilton, who sadly took his own life, I think in 2000 or 2001. We spent a whole day in this place and into the night eulogising Greg's life and expressing deep regret about the loss. We still miss him. It was a heavy defeat after the long reign of the Hawke and Keating governments. I just want to put on the record that the Hawke and then the Keating governments didn't lose in 1996 because of any of its substantial reforms; rather, it lasted so long so because of the success of its very important and substantial reforms. The fact is that every government runs out of life at some point, at least as long as the other party doesn't gift them government for another term, which the Labor Party has been capable of doing, I have to say, from time to time, but I won't dwell on that point. Interestingly, while heads were down, the class of 1996—although I probably shouldn't speak for all of them—were feeling pretty happy, because we were here, and it didn't seem to matter who was in government, at least not to me. I was here, and that was pretty exciting. I think the attitude might have been slightly different if (1) we'd known then just how miserable opposition is, and (2) we'd known how long we would be in opposition, which was, in the end, 11½ years, so it was a long time. I think we were also buoyed by the idea that it was a very small caucus and that a lot of experienced people had left—and that a lot of experienced people were likely to leave in the not-too-distant future because most believed we would be in opposition for a period of time with 49 seats—and therefore our prospects of advancement were pretty good, you might have thought. Some of us didn't have to wait. For example, Martin Ferguson and Jenny Macklin went straight to the front bench. They came straight into the parliament and straight onto the front bench, which is pretty unusual. The only remaining members of the class of 1996 on this side, the member for Grayndler and I, had to be more patient. We had to wait for our genius and talent to be recognised! But we didn't have to wait all that long. In fact, I was surprised that the member for Grayndler didn't join them and go straight to the front bench. He was the only person in the class of 1996 that I knew. I knew many of the existing members, because of my involvement in the party and my associations with them through my father's time here, but I didn't know any of the 11 new members, other than Anthony Albanese. I first met the Leader of the Opposition in the Balmain Town Hall in 1985, a long time ago. I wasn't much of a participant in Young Labor. Few people from the regions are, in fact; it's very much a city concentrated affair. But I'd been recruited to the annual conference at the Balmain Town Hall by right-wing apparatchiks hoping to wrestle control of New South Wales Young Labor from the Left. I dutifully agreed to turn up, and I did. I spent the weekend there not doing much at all. Certainly I didn't make a contribution to the debate. I was just there to cast my vote in the ballot. That was the first time I saw this young firebrand they called Albo, who was completely dominating the conference with his fiery contributions to the debate. Alas, the Right didn't win the ballot. I was in the pub that night after the count with my newly-found right-wing city mates. Heads were down. Maybe naively and maybe rudely, I said to my new friends, 'You guys were never a chance in that ballot today in the Balmain Town Hall,' and they surprisingly said, 'Why's that?' I said, 'Because they had that bloke they call Albo.' The rest is history. I knew then that that young guy would make his way to Canberra. I thought he was destined to play a major role here—to be a cabinet minister and possibly one day the Prime Minister. Well, he has been the Deputy Prime Minister. He was a cabinet minister for six years, and I predict that his final destiny will be fulfilled in May when he becomes the Prime Minister, and I wish him all the very best. His deputy, Richard Marles, my good friend, and all of the team will make a very fine government, if the good people of Australia come to that conclusion. It's been a great honour and privilege, of course, to serve in this place, particularly over such a long time and particularly having followed my father. We all leave, I suspect, with a few regrets. I have a few, and I'll return to a couple of them shortly, but I leave here satisfied, content and happy—very happy. I'm very comfortable with my decision. I think it's just time for me. But I leave happy for a number of reasons. First, I leave on my own terms and at a time of my choosing. I can't imagine—well, I probably can imagine—how difficult it is for those who don't have that opportunity and who leave involuntarily. I leave knowing that I couldn't have worked any harder, either in the electorate or here in Canberra. My wife will attest to that. It's been very disruptive for my family, but I've enjoyed the ride and I'm happy to have, I think, achieved a lot while I've been here. Obviously, I've served in the cabinet, which I think is everyone's aspiration. I've had the great honour of being the country's defence and agriculture minister, albeit for a very short time. The joke works every time in agricultural forums. I describe my 11 or 12 weeks as agriculture minister as the 'golden era in Australian agriculture'! We achieved a lot in those 11 or 12 weeks. But of course the opportunity to be Minister for Defence was an enormous privilege, and to work with the men and women of this country who serve in our uniform is a great privilege and it brings me fond memories, although the workload was somewhat significant. I'm sure the current Minister for Defence understands that. I leave true to myself. I have been, in my view, enormously consistent in my policy positions. Obviously, we have to be agile, and we adjust with changing community attitudes, but the things that form the foundation of my policy development, my thinking and my conclusions remain the same as they were 26 years ago. Most importantly, I'm able to leave this place still married to the Australian Labor Party. Some people don't go the distance. Sometimes people outgrow their party or their party outgrows them. Happily, that's not the case for me. I remain dedicated to the Australian Labor Party—this country's greatest political party, in my humble opinion. I still share its ideals and its objectives and its aspirations for the Australian people, and I will continue to work with it all of my life. And my father wouldn't have it any other way, I'm sure. The foundation of Labor values, from my perspective—we all have our own slightly different interpretations, and that is reasonable—is equality of opportunity. It is to make sure that all Australians, regardless of their background, have an opportunity to fully participate in the economy and to fully reach their natural potential. Having people fully participate in the economy is good for them but it is also good the economy. We are a country of limited human, natural and capital resources and we need to be deploying all of them. We can't have people—in particular, young people—standing idle. It's one of the reasons we are so dependent on foreign labour. We must reduce that dependence by deploying all of our own people. I sought election to Cessnock Council in 1987, 34 years ago, motivated mainly by our bad roads—and kerbing and guttering, drainage and a few other basic services. I think it was Malcolm Fraser who said he wanted to ensure that people had the right to turn on the lights. My father infamously said—I'm pretty sure it was his first speech in here—that he wanted to fight for the right of people to 'pull the chain'! In those days some of the old mining villages around Cessnock still didn't have sewerage, so those basic needs took me to Cessnock Council. I'm happy to say that the roads are much better now—and I'm taking some of the credit, of course. I hope someone in the electorate is listening! Many things brought me to Canberra. It was an opportunity to do good things for my local electorate at a higher level, on a bigger stage and across a broader range of policy issues. But, more than anything else, what brought me to Canberra was the issue of intergenerational unemployment—those kids who are effectively born to fail; those kids who have never known either their parents or grandparents to have worked; those kids who have never woken up to an alarm clock or known their parents to do so; those kids who often have only one parent; those same kids who often don't have the parent at home. These kids need a hand up. I was so pleased with the Labor government's Gonski reforms because part of that was giving our public schools in particular, where you typically find these children, the resources and the ability to identify these kids at the earliest age, preferably kindergarten, and intervene to give them the assistance they need to join mainstream students. I think we have made enormous gains there in the 26 years I have been here, but there are still far too many of these kids. I appeal to all members of this place, and of the other place, to think of them and make them a priority. It is not only important to them, it is important to our communities. These things lead to antisocial behaviour and all sorts of problems. But it is important to our economy—and I go back to that participation issue. I have a few regrets. I'm not going to talk about policy today. I went back to my first speech this week. In fact, I watched it on video. Yes, colleagues, we had video in 1996! They were filming us. The technology wasn't quite the same. Mike Bowers was in the gallery taking photographs then, I think, possibly. He's nodding. He looks exactly the same. He's not dressed up today either, unfortunately, as he is wont to do on ABC some mornings. In that first speech, I was surprised, actually. I lamented the decline in the standards of behaviour in this place. I also lamented the decline in the power of the legislature vis-a-vis executive government, and I made an appeal to the new Prime Minister, John Howard; I don't think he was in the chamber or listening, of course. Through the Speaker, I offered to support any initiatives he might take as the new Prime Minister to both improve behaviour in this place and redress that power imbalance between the House and the cabinet room. Alas, nothing happened, and I'm sad to report what you already know: despite Speaker Smith's best efforts, it's grown worse—much worse—in the time I've been here. I would be very surprised if the Leader of the Opposition doesn't agree. Yes, he's nodding his head. He knows this very well, as a former Leader of the House over a long period of time. I find that sad. I think it's really important that we all work together here to maintain the dignity of the House and, just as importantly, the respect in which it's held by the broader Australian community. That is so important. All of us here have lived all of our lives in a world in which representative democracy is the pre-eminent form of government. The rules based order and all those things that go with that have delivered us such great wealth, peace, stability and security—peace for 77 years, by and large. People are losing trust and confidence in it. We shouldn't take it for granted. There are other models around the world. There's been a fair bit of talk about that in this place of late, usually for the wrong reasons, but I won't dwell on that today. But we shouldn't take it for granted. It's very clear that people are losing confidence in the system. Protests aren't new. I was here in 1996 when the Trots kicked in the front doors of the place. That's another story. I was right there on the inside watching it. Protests aren't new, but they are on the rise, and so too are protest groups—more particularly in the electorate, but not just my electorate. As I move around the country, I feel more and more people are treating us with contempt and losing faith in us. There are many reasons for that, including the rise and rise of social media and other issues, most of which we can't do anything about. But we can change our behaviour in this place and we can change the way we do things in this place. We need to remember that, first and foremost, we are elected to come here in this chamber as lawmakers. That's our first job. I can't help but feel—it's not meant to be a criticism; it's just a culture—that most people come into this place and see this chamber as a stepping stone to the blue carpet, forgetting that this place in itself is not just a theatre for the media and not just an opportunity for them to spruik their wares in the name of their aspirations. This is a serious place, and we need to all work together to maintain the dignity of this place and, of course, to respect and maintain its traditions and its norms and, of course, its standing orders. Again, it's not meant to be a criticism, but I think far fewer members of this place would have a very comprehensive understanding of the standing orders than was the case when I first arrived here. I just don't think people have the time to bother. Some of them let the Manager of Opposition Business worry about that while they're busy making their way to the blue carpet. No, they should know the standing orders, because you can't understand this place unless you do, and if we don't respect it we can't expect people outside the place to respect it. I have a couple of ideas which might not be popular. We shall see. Maybe I could just make them predictions rather than requests. It's hard to change the culture in this place, but we must try. One of the things we can do is reform question time. I know this is perennial. I know that we talk about it all the time. I know that we have had a thousand Procedure Committee reports and recommendations, very few of which have been embraced, although we do have time limits now. The Leader of the Opposition likes to remind me that I once took 15 minutes to answer a dorothy dixer. I'd have to check whether that is true. Honourable members interj ecting— I'm being told it is true! You can get a little bit carried away on your feet when you are focused and you have people interjecting on the other side. So I apologise for that, after all these years. But at least we do have time restrictions now. That's been a good reform, although I still don't know why the member for Kennedy gets more time than anyone else. I love the member for Kennedy, but I think he should get less time, quite frankly. We'd all be better for it. I'm pretty confident he won't mind me saying that; he'll just be happy he got a mention, I suspect! I had some wonderful times with the member for Kennedy as Chief Government Whip in that hung parliament. Every conversation was a respectful one but an interesting one. The thing we have to do is get rid of those stupid dorothy dixers. Is there anything else in this place that drags us down out there in the marketplace more than dorothy dixers? They're just ridiculous. It's not how the founding fathers intended it. Of course it's not. Full marks to the first person who does something about that. I know what I would do. You can't deny private members on the government side the right and opportunity to ask questions of the executive. Of course, you can't. But what I would do is give the opposition the first 10 questions and the government the next 10 questions. I'll bet London to a brick that, by the time you get to the 11th question, all those who sit in the press gallery will be back in their offices. No-one is going to stick around to hear dorothy dixers for an hour or half an hour. I think that, in time, dorothy dixers would change. Because what's the point if no-one's listening? If they change, who knows? We might get lucky. Maybe opposition questions would improve in technical quality as well. That would be a big change in this place. I'd like to see it one day. I won't be here to experience it, but I'd like to see it. There's a power imbalance. I fear the House of Representatives has become not much more than a rubber stamp for executive government, and I think that is a shame and, again, not as the founding fathers intended it. Why is this so? Axiomatically, the government has the numbers in this place, most of the time. We experienced something different with the 44th parliament, the parliament from 2010, in which the Labor government didn't have the majority. But not only do governments typically hold the numbers; they are using them more ruthlessly within their party structures. I might not be popular saying it, but I think party discipline is strangling our democracy in an era when the world is changing so dramatically. I don't think the founding fathers intended that either. I'm not advocating a return to the Second Parliament in 1903, where we had four governments in one term—Deakin, Reid, Watson and then Deakin again. That doesn't serve the Australian people well. I'm not advocating that at all. And yet I have been asked by well-informed schoolchildren who visit this place if I've ever had to vote in a way I didn't actually agree with. I honestly say, 'Yes, I have.' I've told them that the disadvantage that comes from the rare occasion that happens is far outweighed by the capacity as a block to get good things done for the country. In answering that question, I absolutely believed it, but community attitudes are changing so much and the world is changing so much that I think the major parties will be forced to ask themselves whether this strict discipline is sustainable. I think the Australian Labor Party has possibly the strictest party discipline in the world. They certainly don't have that discipline in the Palace of Westminster. They don't have it on the hill in Washington. I suspect the Liberal Party of Australia has the second strictest party discipline in the world. Those opposite will probably be quick to say—No, I'm not even going to mention the National Party, Barnaby! Sorry; I can see you urging me to do it, but that is just another story. Those on the other side will say, 'We allow our people to freely exercise their conscience,' and we saw that amongst the five only a week ago. But we all saw how traumatic that was for them, and we all know that they'll be reflecting today on whether that's ruined their prospects for advancement in this place. Certainly it would have knocked it around. Everyone knows that. So, yes, they might be a little less strict over that side, but it's pretty hard. Why did those five people cross the floor? There might have been various reasons, but I think the foundational reason is that they had no choice because the nature of their electorates is changing and to do otherwise probably would have cost them their seats. So it's cross the floor or say goodbye in three months' time—which reminds us that when the Leader of the Opposition and I arrived here there was a general consensus that around 85 per cent of the Australian electorate voted for either one of the major political parties and the other 15 either swung between the two or parked their primary vote with a minor party. Today, I don't know the number, but I suggest it's more like 70 to 30. Seventy per cent of electors are welded to one of the major political parties or coalition parties, and the others either swing or they're going to all these emerging minor parties, both on the right and the left, including those well-funded excessive progressives. I mischievously call them 'Independent candidates', who are so threatening to moderate electorates on the other side. So, we're all under attack, Labor on both the right and the left, and, of course, that's true of the other side too: One Nation is a threat on their right flank and the rise of these Independent progressives are a threat to them on the left as well. I think the world has changed so quickly that that is going to be unsustainable, and I think the party that moves first in some way will be rewarded and the party that moves second will be forced to follow. I think that will be a very good thing for our democracy. You can formalise it. We all know here that in the Commons they have this concept of one-, two- and three-line whips. You get to do something different when it's not a particularly serious matter, but on the big serious matters you're expected to fall into line. They spend a lot of time there just getting their people to turn up. A lot of people abstain on matters. Goodness gracious me, the chief whip would be pretty distressed about that, I know! But I just think that, if we don't elect to change it, something's going to change it for us. We really won't have a choice. But enough of that. I need to deliver a few thank yous. My journey here was almost as long as my time here, and I couldn't possibly thank all the people who have assisted me along the way. So my necessarily abbreviated list starts with my parents, and I'll finish with my wife and our children. My parents gave me every opportunity in life to fulfil my potential, and I thank them for that with all my love in my heart. My father, as I mentioned, is responsible for developing my interest in politics and steering me towards the Labor Party, and I'm forever grateful for that. Of course, I thank the Labor Party in all of its manifestations, both nationally and locally. I've been supported by a whole army of branch members over 34 years, and my father before that—I was letterbox-dropping when I was about 12 for local government elections—and I'm eternally grateful to all of them at every level. We all know on this side, and it's true of most on the other side, we don't get elected here because we're popular or good-looking or people like us necessarily. I get elected because there's the word 'Labor' after my name, and few of us would be here without the support of our political parties. I'm enormously indebted to the party and everyone in it I've worked with over many years. I thank colleagues and friends in the trade union movement. The trade union movement is the ballast of the Labor Party. It formed the Labor Party, and it rightly continues to have a say in the Labor Party. That's a good thing because they are close to the coalface and close to the people who rely so much on us here to do the right thing by them. I thank all of the local communities and everyone in them I've worked with. I thank people for supporting me. Of course, even the people in safer seats get, at best, six in 10 people supporting them. None of us are loved universally in our electorates, but I've been strongly supported, and I've worked with some amazing people at all sorts of levels, and I thank them here. I thank all those who have worked with me in my various offices. I calculated that I might have had 50 staff members in the time I've been here. That's a rough guess. I have no idea really, but it's a lot. I can't name them all, but in the electorate, I want to thank those who currently work for me: Liz Deloraine, Tara Naysmith, Renae Stevens, Peta Lindsay, Rachel Bailey, Tallen Howson and Summer Johns. I point out to the people listening outside that some of them are part time; we don't have that many staffers at any one time. We all wish we could. I'm going to take a risk and name a couple of staff who recently left my office: Kim Smith and Darrin Gray. I also thank portfolio staff. I couldn't possibly name even a fraction of them, but I do want to name people who continue to have an influence on my life who worked for me for a long time and who are still in my life in some way. It's not an exhaustive list, but they include Natasa Sikman, my long-term chief of staff. Most people in this place on both sides know her and know of the great job she did. I also thank Brendan Long, Tracey Winters, Christian Taubenschlag and Tyson Sara—all wonderful staffers. I thank Anna George. Anna George has had more than a couple of mentions in this place throughout the 'valedictory season'. She's been driving what I call the flight deck in the chief whip's office for a long, long time—back to my time in that hung parliament but even before then. I have no idea how the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party is going to function without Anna George. She's totally in control. She's the real boss. Sorry, Chris, but she's the real boss. Yes, he's nodding his head in agreement. And the Leader of the Opposition said, 'Did you say she knows or he knows?' He knows. I'm glad I clarified that. I've made many friends and, obviously, I can't name all of them. Happily, I've made lots of friends on both sides of the chamber. I will collectively name my colleagues in the New South Wales Right who I dined with last night at the risk of leaving others out. Obviously, that's been an important group for me all of the time I've been here. I see Senator Don Farrell in the gallery with my good friend Senator Raff Ciccone. I'd be a bit surprised if people don't describe Don and me as a bit of an odd couple, because we're very different in many ways, but ideologically I think we're pretty close. We've done some great things here together. Some might disagree; some might think they were bad things. He and I have become great friends. That's true of Raff too, but Don and I have been great friends for a long time and, like many other friendships in the chamber, I know that it will be a lifelong friendship. I'm leaving this place, but I suspect that, even though he comes from that free settlers state and he's a long away, I'll be seeing a bit of Don. The bad news is I'll probably be in Canberra for a little while after I leave this particular building. For those of you who thought they'd seen the last of me, I'm sorry; you might be seeing a little bit more of me yet, but nowhere near as much as you have in the years that you've been here. On that question, I always say to new members, when they arrive in this place, three things: be ambitious, but don't be in a hurry; always be true to your values, your ideals and your electorate—and electorate is becoming more and more important, because they're all more contestable now; and don't go out of your way to make enemies because you'll pick up plenty along the way without trying. In other words, make friends wherever you can. You might need them one day. I refer to my relationship with Barnaby Joyce, the member for New England, as an 80/20 arrangement. We spend 80 per cent of our time butting heads and the other 20 per cent of the time drinking beer and collaborating on issues that are really important to rural and regional Australia. I'm going to dwell on the other side for a bit to make a point for those people listening outside. I want people to understand that we don't just fight like cats and dogs all day. We have relationships. We do things, for example, in the committee system. It would be nice if a government started to take some notice of the recommendations of House committees. There would be a significant change in the power imbalance between the House and the executive. I was outraged when someone decided—I hope it wasn't us; I don't think it was—that the Prime Minister would appoint the committee chair. Let the House appoint the committee chair. What does it have to do with the executive government or the Prime Minister? Nothing. It's almost a privilege issue, from my perspective. Get out of our way! This is our chamber, and we'll decide who chairs the chamber's committees. It would be nice if a government—any government of any political stripe—started to take a little bit of notice of what those committees do. They spend a lot of time and put in a lot of work examining witnesses and coming to conclusions, usually in a bipartisan fashion, which is an important point. They're working together. Wow! The Australian people don't see too much of that, and I wish they could see more of that. I want to talk about friendship groups. The member for Barker and I are, for example, co-chairs of the forest products and forest industries group. We work overtime trying to produce a bipartisan view of an industry that's so important to the Australian economy. We talk about supply chains and sovereign capability in the COVID environment. There's nothing more important than the supply of our timber products. I know that the member for Corangamite has been very interested in this issue. Housing and construction prices are going to go through the roof, on timber prices alone. We're becoming increasingly import dependent. There's a shortage around the world. So it's going to be harder to get those timber products. We don't want to have a debate today about native forests. That's another issue. However, native forests operate on a sustainable basis, certified by two international bodies. But I'll park that today. We need to get more plantations in the ground, which requires patient capital. We support industries in all forms. All we need to do is give them full access to our carbon credits under the Emissions Reduction Fund. There has been a bit of movement, but we need to do much more. Of course, those timber products can replace carbon intensive steel and concrete. They are carbon absorbing. They take carbon out of the atmosphere. The member for Barker and I are probably strange bedfellows, but we've done some good work together. There are many examples of that. The member for Leichhardt and I were chief whips together in that crazy hung parliament. We had a great relationship, which continues. There are many examples. I thank them all for their friendship. I've had many mentors along the way, too many to name. I still regularly dine with Paul Keating and Laurie Brereton. I thank them for their guidance. I still have some long lunches with Graham Richardson, who, of course, was a great character in this place. Of course, there's my father. Reaching right back, I want to quickly mention a guy that not a lot of people would know in this place. Stan Neilly was the state member for Cessnock. The opposition leader knew Stan. He was the member for Cessnock throughout both my time and my father's time. We lost him in January. He was just shy of 80. I want to reflect on that and say that Stan Neilly was classic old school. He was hardworking, intelligent and fiercely loyal. He was one of those guys who never sought any acknowledgement for anything he did, either in his work or on a voluntary basis. I thank all of those people who make this place tick. Mr Speaker, you're the 10th Speaker I've served under. I don't know how many clerks I've served under. It's a lot. I want to thank the clerks and all the Reps team. Can I say on that point that, if governments of any persuasion keep putting efficiency dividends on efficiency dividends and apply that to a small department like that of the House of Representatives, it'll have an adverse impact on this place. I've seen the deterioration in the resourcing over my time here. Who can forget when they took the pot plants off us? Obviously that's a frivolous issue but, more seriously, there has been a struggle within the department to deliver what we expect to have in terms of support. They can't keep doing it on less money. You can only squeeze so much juice out of a lemon. You can't keep driving efficiencies. Of course, there's the Library and Aussies Cafe, which keeps us fuelled every day. Where would we be? Gee, some deals have been hatched at Aussies Cafe, I'm sure, since 1988. The attendants, security, and those who keep the place clean for us—I thank them all. Those sporting nice blazers who tuck us in our Comcars safely at night—or they used to tuck us safely in our Comcars. That's not quite the resource or service it used to be. That's not a complaint, I should say, but it's another example of people struggling to do what they always did for us with limited resources. I thank all the peak industry bodies I've worked with over many years. There are too many to name, but they include the Minerals Council of Australia, APPEA, AFPA, the National Farmers Federation and a whole gamut of peak groups within the agriculture sector—CropLife, ALEC and the Cattle Council. The list is very, very long. I thank the many companies. Obviously, as frontbenchers we engage a lot with corporations with policy interests, and I've made lifelong friendships there too. I thank all those I've worked with. Finally, and most importantly, I thank my wife, Dianne, and our three children. Dianne wanted to be here today. I discouraged it; I think it's a long way to come for a speech. But I know that she's watching, and so too are at least some of the kids. Grace, Jack and Caitlin were four, five and six when I came here, and that's pretty tough. Dianne raised those kids effectively on her own, and for all that they've achieved she takes the credit, or most of it. And they have achieved, and we're very proud of them. So, for all I didn't do or did badly or did wrong, I say sorry, and I thank her for her enormous contribution and her forbearance. She did all of that, the whole time, while concurrently pursuing her own professional life, which is pretty extraordinary. I thank her and extend my love to her. Finally, I just want to say, on a lighter note, that I don't want anyone to applaud yet but very soon there'll be no-one in this place with the surname Fitzgibbon. It's been 38 years. But the good news is that I fully expect—I'm not going to use this piece to promote a candidate—that you will be joined, I think, by a guy by the name of Dan Repacholi, who's the candidate in Hunter. At six foot eight and 130 kilos, he's pretty imposing. He's not particularly overweight, I have to say. I hope to see him soon, and look forward to seeing him, at that dispatch box. I say to the whips, or whoever makes the decisions about who stands next to whom at the table when we're being sworn in, that I'd be very selective when planning that arrangement. But, while Dan Repacholi is a big man, he's a gentle giant. I don't really know what it is about him, but everyone seems to love him, and I know everyone here will love him too. I wish him the best and I wish all of you the best. And from me now it's goodbye. I thank the House.
Genocide | Private Members' Business | House debates
I second the motion, and I rise in support of the motion moved by my friend, the member for North Sydney. Together, we convene the Australia-Armenia parliamentary group. The International Day of...
I second the motion, and I rise in support of the motion moved by my friend, the member for North Sydney. Together, we convene the Australia-Armenia parliamentary group. The International Day of Commemoration and Dignity of the Victims of the Crime of Genocide and the Prevention of this Crime is an important one, and those of us who are making a contribution to the debate tonight would like to see it receive more attention. In particular, we'd like to generate more attention for the Armenian genocide. For too many years, survivors and their descendants of that terrible event have been ignored. Their calls for historic justice have largely fallen on deaf ears. A little more than 106 years ago, more than three million Armenian, Assyrian and Greek peoples lost their lives for no other reason but for their ethnicity and their beliefs. That is genocide: there is no other word for it. And it's time that the Australian parliament joined with many others who have recognised it as such. This is important, not only to give closure to those affected by the events of 1915 but to send a clear signal to the world that genocidal behaviour will not be tolerated by our community of nations. Support for the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide means taking resolute action on all genocides—tolerating genocide denial does all of us harm. It's a stain on our conscience and it prevents survivors from achieving proper healing. I understand the events of 1915 are a sensitive issue amongst Australians of Turkish heritage. But recognition of the crimes of the Ottoman Empire's leaders is no more a reflection on our Turkish friends here in Australia than is the recognition of the crimes of the Nazis on Australians of German heritage—zero reflection. Earlier this year, as indicated by the member for North Sydney, the United States took the important historic step of recognising the Armenian genocide. President Biden's recognition is a significant shift in US foreign policy. In recognising the genocide of 2015 he has led the way, and has joined some 32 other countries around the world in making such a recognition. It's time for the Australian parliament to do the same. By continuing to remain silent, and tolerating genocide denialism, we are effectively diminishing the very legacy established by our forefathers and the great work they did to help the victims of this horrible crime. Our Anzacs were there, by their side, in 1915, and Australia accepted many refugees. Armenian and other diaspora have generously continued to support those who have an ongoing disadvantage because of the genocide. I have seen the Australian Armenians do that firsthand. I've had the confronting experience of visiting the former Auschwitz concentration camp in Poland. One million people were gassed to death in that camp. Six million Jews across Europe were murdered in the Holocaust. It is surely the worst atrocity in modern human history, if not all of human history. Visiting Auschwitz today, you see people shedding tears. Even the most hardened of them. It's difficult not to. The families of those Armenians, Assyrians and Greeks who were victims of the 1915 genocide do not ask for our tears; they simply ask for recognition. Like the member for North Sydney, I have had the confronting experience of visiting the Armenian genocide memorial in Yerevan, Armenia's modern capital. There, too, it is difficult not to be overwhelmed by emotion. I predict that in coming years more parliaments around the world will add themselves to the list of those recognising the events of 1915. I hope the Australian parliament is amongst them—indeed, I hope the Australian parliament does that soon and leads the way for others.
Cybersecurity | Private Members' Business | House debates
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was looking for some latitude, of course, because this is an unanticipated expectation. So I'm just going to close by saying that I appreciate the attention...
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was looking for some latitude, of course, because this is an unanticipated expectation. So I'm just going to close by saying that I appreciate the attention that Minister Hunt has given to this issue for me in recent days, but I still have a number of issues, including in my home town of Cessnock. I have seen many models used to address this malapportionment. None of them have been perfect. The current system is not perfect, and I hope I can work with the minister to address some of the existing problems, particularly in western Lake Macquarie and, of course, in my home town of Cessnock.
Alas in more regional and rural areas, we struggle. Even in a township like Morisset, which is very close to the western side of beautiful Lake Macquarie, on the major train station taking people...
Alas in more regional and rural areas, we struggle. Even in a township like Morisset, which is very close to the western side of beautiful Lake Macquarie, on the major train station taking people to Sydney and two minutes drive from the M1.
you're very fortunate because I'm sure you have plenty of GPs in your electorate of Parramatta, Madam Deputy Speaker.
In my more than 25 years in this place representing the good people of the Hunter electorate, there have been issues which have stayed with me as a challenge for all of that period. Two really...
In my more than 25 years in this place representing the good people of the Hunter electorate, there have been issues which have stayed with me as a challenge for all of that period. Two really stand out. The first issue is intergenerational unemployment. This is an area in which we've made some inroads, but I have a very strong view that we won't succeed in overcoming this issue until we have an education system that maximises intervention with children at the earliest age, preferably at the level of preschool, if not early child care. It remains my view that that intervention at the earliest possible age is critical with children who have never known their parents or grandparents to have worked, who have never woken up to an alarm clock—or seen others do so—and have certainly never worked to a routine and a schedule. These are people who are, effectively, born to be unemployed. The intervention of those wonderful people who work in early child care, preschool, kindergarten and primary school more generally will be very, very critical in achieving more success on that front. The second issue is the shortage of GPs in many of the towns I represent or have represented. It's not quite as big a challenge to me these days because, with the 2015 redistribution, my electorate substantially shrank from 20,000 square kilometres to 10,000 square kilometres, excising from my electorate many of the more rural townships that found this such a difficult challenge. Alas, though, I still have challenges in townships. I was very pleased that, earlier this year, the minister agreed to provide DPA status, or distribution priority area status, to Muswellbrook LGA in my electorate, which is going to make an enormous difference to people in Muswellbrook, Denman and indeed, the township of Merriwa in the electorate of the member for New England. But what has been consistent, is the inadequacy of the system for all of that time. We don't have a GP shortage in New South Wales; we have a malapportionment of GPs, and—
Armenia | Constituency Statements | House debates
I'm proud that, for many years now—more recently, with the member for North Sydney—I've co-convened the Australia-Armenia parliamentary group. My relationship with the community was,...
I'm proud that, for many years now—more recently, with the member for North Sydney—I've co-convened the Australia-Armenia parliamentary group. My relationship with the community was, in part, born out of the relationship that the Anzacs forged with Armenian forces during the First World War and, of course, my interest in the terrible events of 1915 known as the Armenian genocide. It's been a little more than a year since Azerbaijan launched indiscriminate and unprovoked attacks against the Republic of Artsakh. Formerly known as Nagorno-Karabakh, the former Soviet Union satellite remains occupied by Turkish-backed Azerbaijani forces. The Azerbaijani invasion resulted in the death of around 5,000 young Armenian men. Azerbaijani forces destroyed civilian infrastructure, including hundreds of schools and places of worship. More than 100,000 innocent civilians have been displaced. The Australian Armenian community has been in a state of overwhelming devastation, shock, and despair as they've witnessed their homeland desecrated at the hands of Azerbaijani forces, including paid Turkish-backed Syrian mercenaries. The relative silence of the international community is, of course, of great concern to the Armenian diaspora. Azerbaijan's military aggression against indigenous Armenians in Artsakh involved alleged war crimes using cluster and white phosphorus munitions and attacks on Armenian churches, hospitals, civilians and schools. Armenians around the world are rallying to assist those who were displaced, to their great credit. Australian Armenians have joined the diaspora around the world in calling for the international community to call out Azerbaijan and to stop their belligerent activities. Australia should do just that. A number of countries, including France and the USA, and bodies such as the European parliament have rightly publicly condemned Azerbaijan's deliberate violations of international law. We should join with the many across the globe by making our unhappiness about the situation in Artsakh well known and by recognising the right to self-determination for the people of Artsakh. The conflict is a test for the robustness of our international architecture and the rules based order we all rely so much upon. We must pass the test.
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Standards and Assurance) Bill 2021; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I rise to speak on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Standards and Assurance) Bill 2021. This bill and the bill that was debated, I think, last year in this...
I rise to speak on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Standards and Assurance) Bill 2021. This bill and the bill that was debated, I think, last year in this place, both seek to amend the EPBC Act and to implement the recommendations of the so-called Samuel review. The EPBC Act is now 21 years old. It was a creature of the Howard government and a welcome reinforcement of the Commonwealth's role in environmental policy in this country. It was a Labor government, I think, in 2008 that decided to put in place a statutory 10-year review of the act. The first one was done immediately under Dr Allan Hawke. Ten years on there was one done under Graeme Samuel, the former chair of the ACCC and a pretty highly regarded Australian. There is no doubt, and I have heard many say it throughout the course of this debate, that our environmental challenges are very, very significant—there can be no doubt about that and I don't think anyone in this building is arguing otherwise—but so too are our economic challenges. We need to get the balance right. As the Samuel review noted, 'Our natural environment is in a state of decline and is coming under increasing threats from human and other behaviour.' But it is also true that investors are being held back by a complex and cumbersome regulatory regime. I say 'regimes', plural, very deliberately, because projects which trigger Commonwealth scrutiny face two very long processes. Firstly, at the state level. It can take years. Then, of course, at the Commonwealth level, where, again, the process can take years. Given the impacts of COVID-19, as we, hopefully, work our way out of it—we're all fearing tonight that we might be going back into it—we are all acutely aware that it is now more important than ever to stimulate investment and nation building in this country. Graeme Samuel made it clear that the EPBC Act, in its current form, is delivering neither for the environment nor for the economy and those who operate in our economy. He also concluded that it's not working or delivering for our traditional owners. That is something we must fix, and we must fix it collectively. We must find a greater level of bipartisanship on this issue if we're going to do this right and if we're going to do it in a timely way. Twenty-one years ago, the Commonwealth decided to exercise its constitutional power to engage itself more heavily in the regulation of economic investment and its impact on our natural environment, and that was a very good thing. Since 2019, the centrepiece of national environmental law, replacing a number of Whitlam-era acts, has been the EPBC Act. I think it has served us pretty well, but it's certainly not serving us well enough in the 21st century. As required by law, we are reviewing it every 10 years. Everything we discuss tonight and in relation to the earlier bill—and there will be more bills—relates to the 38 recommendations that Graeme Samuel made. Professor Samuel also warned that the act is not delivering for our traditional owners. This is something that has been missing somewhat, I think, in this debate. I haven't heard every contribution, but I think we need to have a broader discussion about it. I can see the solutions in this bill for regulatory burden, but I haven't yet been able to clearly identify what changes there are for our traditional owners. Is that further involvement of the traditional owners happening within the bilaterals? It certainly doesn't appear to be in the interim standards. How do we intend to ensure that our traditional owners are more engaged and have a greater say in the future of their lands? The review offered thoughtful criticisms, I thought, of the complexity of the EPBC, its failure to protect our natural environment, the brake it's putting on jobs growth and, of course, its vulnerability to vexatious legislation, which is one of the things that will be dealt with in this review, if fully and properly implemented. Graeme Samuel also noted that the EPBC is trusted neither by business nor by the environmental groups. That in itself indicates to me that we have a problem that needs to be fixed. So particular attention has been given to that two-step system that I spoke about, and, of course, that's the focus of the debate we're having tonight: how we get to that one-touch system so that proponents go through only one regulatory system rather than two, but through a system in which the Commonwealth still dictates the terms. The review found that Commonwealth environmental approvals for big resource projects take an average of three years, and that's after the years already invested through the state regulatory process. Indeed, the Minerals Council of Australia has estimated that a delay on greenfields projects can cost up to $47 million every month—not every year but every month. The Productivity Commission has also sounded the alarm, suggesting that the total cost of a one-year delay of a big project is between 17 and 18 per cent of its net present value. You don't have to be a mathematician to work out that, on a project worth $2 billion, that's a very significant amount of money. Graeme Samuel recommended that the current system's job-destroying duplication should be addressed by improving, strengthening and streamlining the capacity of the federal government to delegate Commonwealth approval functions to state governments under bilateral agreements, but only where state processes are of acceptable quality and projects will be assessed against new, stringent and enforceable national environmental standards. I think that's a very good point. I think people are rightly concerned that state regimes might not have the resources or the capacity to properly deal with some of these bigger projects. But that will be dealt with before the process. The Commonwealth will ensure that the state has the capacity, and, of course, the states, not unsurprisingly, will be asking the Commonwealth for some money to bolster their resources and their capacity. That should be the case and I have no doubt that will be the case. A year on from the release of the interim report, it's time to get on with the reforms needed both to better protect our iconic natural assets and to deliver a much-needed boost for our economy. The impacts of COVID-19 demand a new urgency and should generate strong and timely multi-party parliamentary support for the legislation needed to introduce the interim national environmental standards that reflect the existing requirements of the act so that legal effect can be given to them, and strengthen and make more robust the bilateral framework that has existed since the creation of the EPBC Act. I've heard some people say that the interim standards are somewhat less than the standards that existed under the Abbott government. That would set alarm bells off for me as well, I must say. But the fact is that there were no standards under the regime of the Abbott government. These are the interim standards ahead of the introduction of the final standards. These standards are new and are an important and necessary part of the process of delegating the Commonwealth powers to the states. We must remember that this concept of interim standards went to the national cabinet and that the national cabinet agreed unanimously that interim standards which reflect the current law should be in place so that we can get on with the job and provide protections that are no less or more than the current protections that someone would expect under the settings of the current act. I think that with the unanimous support of the national cabinet we should give very serious consideration to that. We cannot wait for the appropriate amount of time that would be necessary to put in place the final standards before taking the regulatory burden from some of these projects. I have listened to many of the contributions and very few people have really talked directly about the act that is before us in the parliament tonight and today. I suspect that, when this bill goes to the Senate, it will be dealt cognately with the earlier bill—the streamlining environmental approvals bill. I think that would be appropriate. The key points that we need to focus on here are what emerges out of these two bills, not all the other general range of propositions that come out of the Samuel review per se. These are the things that we need to be focusing on and, on that basis, I think it's time for the parties generally to make a commitment to getting on with the job while at the same time, of course, expecting no less than the highest of standards that we can boast about and be very proud of when talking to our international partners in international fora.
Climate Change | Adjournment | House debates
I join with the previous speaker, the member for Menzies, in paying tribute not only to the soldier he just named but also to our first responders. I also acknowledge his outstanding service to...
I join with the previous speaker, the member for Menzies, in paying tribute not only to the soldier he just named but also to our first responders. I also acknowledge his outstanding service to this House over a 30-year period and wish him the best after the next election. But, on a more sombre note, I can sadly report to the House that a new form of McCarthyism has kept crept into the Australian culture, and it's alive and well in the Hunter region, deep in coal-economy heartland. This 21st century version of the Cold War doctrine has been on display at our local university, where a quite extraordinary, misleading, ideological and shrill campaign has resulted in former Deputy Prime Minister Mark Vaile's decision to decline the offer of the position of Chancellor of the University of Newcastle. During the Cold War, people found themselves blacklisted on suspicion they were supporters of or sympathised with the Communist Party. Suffice to say, many on the blacklist appeared without cause and suffered greatly as a result. Many lost their jobs or were discriminated against in the workforce. In Australia today, the blacklist is not so shadowy; Mark Vaile's listing has been very public. The crime he has been publicly shamed for is his association with the coalmining industry. It's a very slippery slope. Today the excessive progressives target those associated with the coal industry, but no doubt tomorrow it will be anyone associated with the oil, gas and fuel-refining industries. What's next? The meat-processing industry? The steel-manufacturing sector? Will the blacklist extend to those who invest in or work in the energy intensive aluminium smelters or the wool industry, which regularly cops it from animal welfare groups? Maybe those industries that manufacture our fertilisers and crop protection products will be next. Who is the final arbiter of these things? Where and when will this madness end? The world is moving rapidly towards a lower carbon economy. So too is the Hunter region, with pumped hydro, solar thermal, solar photovoltaic battery, hydrogen, biomass and gas-peaking projects in the investment pipeline. We are leading the country, and that's a good thing. But the coal industry will also be with us for many decades to come, and that is also a good thing. Investment in new low-carbon technology is growing exponentially, and the investment around the world is largely being led by large corporations with a history in the oil, gas, energy and mining sectors. Imagine if we argue that the chair of BHP, a coal and steel company now heavily investing in low-carbon technologies, should be excluded from any involvement in local institutions which have, as part of their mission, ambitions for a lower carbon economy. That would be massively counterproductive. Yes, Mark Vaile chairs the board of Whitehaven Coal, but he also chairs an investment fund with around a billion dollars worth of wind and solar technologies under management. Expressing interest in the largely ceremonial job on offer at the University of Newcastle, Mark Vaile said: When considering the role, I took a close look at The University's strategic plan, Looking Ahead, and was impressed by what I found. He went on to say: I am excited by the role I can play in helping the University deliver on the University's commitment to become carbon-neutral by 2025. He also said: The importance of an energy transition is here in our backyard. The education sector has a critical role to play in this challenge. Mark Vaile would not have, and probably could not have as chancellor, changed the university's strategic direction, even if he wanted to. The university will recover from the loss of a former deputy prime minister with extensive management experience, with deep connections within our state and federal government, and a commitment to the institution which educated his children. The bigger concern is the misplaced campaign against one of our regions most important industries and the message the demonisation of Mark Vaile sends to the tens of thousands of local people who work in the coal industry and associated sectors. This month the excessive progressives demonise them—shame on them.
Rugby League, Indigenous Australians | Constituency Statements | House debates
It was a great pleasure and, indeed, a relief to be present for the Newcastle Knights victory over the Manly Sea Eagles on Sunday. The Sea Eagles have lifted the legendary Bob Fulton the week...
It was a great pleasure and, indeed, a relief to be present for the Newcastle Knights victory over the Manly Sea Eagles on Sunday. The Sea Eagles have lifted the legendary Bob Fulton the week before and almost did so again this week. We were lucky to get away with the win. I pay tribute to Bob Fulton, my childhood footy hero. We will farewell him at a state funeral service on Friday, where we will extend our sympathies to his friends and his family. While the Knights' win was a highlight in my week, so too was the briefing those of us in the captain's box received from Professor Nathan Towney, Pro Vice-Chancellor Indigenous, Strategy and Leadership at the University of Newcastle. The weekend's games were part of the NRL's Indigenous round of events, a time when we both reflect on and urge more action on Indigenous disadvantage and we celebrate the very significant contributions Indigenous players have made and continue to make to the NRL. They are amongst the games biggest stars. The University of Newcastle has a proud history of participation and engagement with Indigenous Australians. It is committed to reconciliation and to its responsibility as educator in this process. The university has an outstanding track record in Indigenous education and research and is a national leader in Indigenous engagement. A total of 4.6 per cent of its students are Indigenous, the highest percentage of any university in the country. A total of 2.4 per cent of its staff are Indigenous, the highest percentage of any university in Australia. Newcastle has graduated more than 110 Indigenous medical students, the highest number in the country. It has graduated more Indigenous teachers than any other university in Australia. The uni has three pathway programs for Indigenous students. The University of Newcastle is a national leader in reconciliation, not only through the development of its own reconciliation action plan but also through supporting industry and businesses in the Hunter and Central Coast regions to develop their own reconciliation action plans. Since 1983, the Wollotuka Institute has operated as a support centre for Indigenous students studying at the University of Newcastle. The institute champions academically enriching and culturally affirming education across its campuses. I congratulate the university council, Vice-Chancellor Alex Zelinsky, Pro Vice-Chancellor Towney and all those at the university on their significant work and commitment to our First Nations people.
Consideration of Senate Message | Resolutions of the Senate | House debates
I acknowledge all those who serve or have served, including those with us this afternoon, including the member for Braddon, who is still in the chamber. Of course, I too acknowledge Heston...
I acknowledge all those who serve or have served, including those with us this afternoon, including the member for Braddon, who is still in the chamber. Of course, I too acknowledge Heston Russell, Julie-Ann Finney—who has had to leave us—and Sapper Tim Lowe, who have been maintaining a vigil in the Speaker's gallery throughout the course of this debate. I also, too, as others have done, acknowledge Senator Jacqui Lambie, who has been on a real crusade with respect to veterans' issues and in particular the atrocious level of veteran suicide. It reminds me never to get on the wrong side of Jacqui! A commissioning certificate hanging on the wall in my office reads as follows: 'I, Phillip Michael Jeffrey, Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, pursuant to section 64 and 65 of the Constitution, hereby direct and appoint the Hon. Joel Fitzgibbon MP a member of the federal executive council to hold the office of Minister for Defence and to administer the Department of Defence and the Department of Veterans' Affairs.' Unsurprisingly, I occasionally pause to read and reflect on that certificate—what it means and what it meant to me. Unsurprisingly again, these private moments bring different emotions at different times. Sometimes it's pride. Sometimes it's regret. And, sometimes, it brings great sorrow. On days like today, it's a mix of regret and sorrow. I regret I missed an opportunity to do more for our veterans, and I think we all take collective responsibility for that. I, of course, feel sorrow for those who have paid such a terrible price, whether it's because they've lost their lives in theatre or after serving they've taken their lives or they've suffered disability. I have sorrow for the families who have been affected by loss, disability or any consequence of the service of a loved one. The grief of parents who have suffered the loss of a child when wearing the Australian military uniform is unimaginable to those who haven't experienced it. The member for New England and others have acknowledged the fact that I have a son who served. Even with that, I cannot imagine—and don't want to imagine—how terrible that must be. Next week I'll officially launch Hugh Poate's account of the murder of his son, Robbie, and two other Australian soldiers in Afghanistan, and it will be a great honour to do so. Hugh's account of that loss and the family's search for honesty, transparency and closure is a very, very powerful one indeed. Each year the government allocates $11.5 billion to the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Some $230 million is dedicated to mental health. We may need to spend more; we may just need to spend better. I don't think any of us are sure. Certainly, we have to commit the resources necessary to fix this terrible problem we have, which is surely an embarrassment to our nation state. We should not lecture others in other countries about human rights and the extent to which they respect and protect their people while these numbers are so horrifying. It's time for a royal commission. Too often there are calls for a royal commission, and each of the causes is worthy, but we all know we can't have a royal commission into everything. Royal commissions must be reserved for the most serious of matters, the most complex matters, and those matters requiring interrogation of people under oath. A royal commission must be the foundation for the beginning of the journey—the beginning of fixing this problem. The proposition put forward by the government is a good one, too. We should have both. We should have the royal commission, helping us to learn about the mistakes, and we should have the commissioner taking us forward to oversee that we are doing the right thing and the only thing to do into the future. I began by reflecting on my time serving as defence minister. One emotion that never leaves me when reflecting on our commissioning certificate—the one thing that never changes—is my high regard and respect for all those who serve, particularly those who go beyond the wire. While my memories of being defence minister are mixed, one thing that left me with overwhelmingly positive memories was getting to know and understand those who do go beyond the wire—those who, when they go out, don't know whether they're coming back and who know that they may never see their families again. It's a powerful thing to stand alongside those people in the theatre—not beyond the wire, in my case—and, although we don't fully understand, we better understand what they go through. I send them all a message with respect to the Brereton report. The Brereton report is a very, very serious one. Those who have acted unlawfully will need to be held to account. There can be no walking away from that. But there are enough of us here on both sides, I think, to allow me to say to the overwhelming majority that we have your back and that we all fully appreciate and understand and highlight the mitigating circumstances—the fact that we sent them to war without a plan to win and we sent them there under the command of others. We sent them to fight an enemy that neither fights to any rules nor serves in uniform while at the same time they were expected to comply with both domestic and international law, regulations and the like—the list is very long. We sent them to do all that without properly resourcing them. That is the truth of it. They didn't always have the medevacs they needed. They didn't always have the close air support they required. That is a terrible thing. And when we start to see those things flow from the Brereton report, all of us will have to be held to account. Those who served as defence minister, those who served in the National Security Committee of Cabinet, those who served as CDF and those who served as chiefs are all responsible. Many of us in this place, if not all of us in this place, will ensure that the fallout from the Brereton report is not something that will just fall on them but will fall on all those who were responsible in some way, in any way, for a culture that developed in Afghanistan and all the consequences that flowed from it. The most important point is that we need to stand behind our men and women in the Australian uniform.
He's a private. That's what he wants to be.
If you could extend me a little bit of latitude, I am conscious of the fact that while we participate in this important debate Brittany Higgins is on her feet addressing the rally outside. I'd...
If you could extend me a little bit of latitude, I am conscious of the fact that while we participate in this important debate Brittany Higgins is on her feet addressing the rally outside. I'd like to acknowledge and thank her for her courage and her activism. I'd like to express my sorrow for her experience and wish her the very best into the future. But life goes on inside the building. This is an important debate. I congratulate the member for Grey, because he has been able to bring a group of people together from all political persuasions to talk about the importance of gas. In this country the gas sector remains a bedrock of the Australian economy, both in consumption terms and in export terms. It's our second biggest export earner. We use it domestically to generate electricity and to power our manufacturing plants. We use it as a feedstock in just about every product we use in our daily lives, including personal protective equipment that we relied upon so much during the COVID period. It keeps us warm in our homes. I see some Victorians here; Victorians are the biggest per capita consumers of gas in the country. In fact, I think the biggest consumers of gas in absolute terms are the Victorians, and yet they are so reluctant to get gas out of the ground. We use it to cook our food, and we use it to heat our water. Gas provides 25 per cent of our energy consumption. I'm not talking about electricity consumption now. I'm talking about energy. I'm talking about the planes in the air, the cars on our roads, what we consume in our homes and what we consume in industry. By comparison, oil is 38.7 per cent and coal is 29.9 per cent, so, at 25 per cent, it's a big part of our energy supply. It will be an important part for many, many decades to come. Importantly, only 37 per cent of that 25 per cent is used for electricity generation, highlighting what I said earlier. This debate is not just about electricity generation, as important as that is. This debate is about what we rely upon gas to do in our broader communities. As our coal generators age, they won't be replaced—it's highly unlikely that anyone is going to build a new coal generator in this country. There are those who are hopeful, but I don't think the numbers stack up. In New South Wales 90 per cent of our electricity generation comes from plants that are 30 years old or older, so we've got a problem coming. Renewables are important, but we can't rely on renewables only. To get more renewables into the system, we need more synchronous or firming power. The best, quickest and most cost efficient way of doing that is to get more gas electricity generation into the system. An email in its integrated system plan tells us that to 2040 we will need between six to 19 gigawatts of firming power—that is, between three and 10 Liddell coal-fired power stations. Where do people think this power is going to come from, if we don't get more gas out of the ground and start generating more electricity with gas? The ACCC tells us that we've got problems: we've got a lack of gas, we've got a lack of connectivity and we've got a lack of competition in the gas pipeline sector. We need to get more gas out of the ground. There will be some communities who don't want it extracted near prime agricultural land, and that's fine. There are plenty of areas where it can be extracted without any threat to agriculture in this country. We should be extracting more. That's why I so strongly support the Narrabri Gas Project in New South Wales. It's why I support the Hunter Gas Pipeline, which will bring more gas from South-East Queensland through the Hunter Valley, fuelling new industrial opportunities and bringing more competition to the network in that part of the world. In the Hunter region, we will lose our coal generators over time. We've got an abundance of renewable projects in the pipeline, but we will need the gas. We've got two important gas peaking stations in the pipeline. One is from AGL at Tomago and one is from Snowy Hydro in Kurri Kurri. I'm very hopeful we achieve at least one of them. I'll certainly be working on behalf of the community to make sure we do, so that we can remain, in the Hunter, the engine room of New South Wales.
Sneddon, Mrs Dianne | Constituency Statements | House debates
In every regional community you will find several people who might be described as community leaders, people who go above and beyond what might be expected of them, people who work tirelessly in...
In every regional community you will find several people who might be described as community leaders, people who go above and beyond what might be expected of them, people who work tirelessly in the interests of their local community. Singleton's Di Sneddon is one of those people, and I was pleased to learn last week that she'd become the Upper Hunter New South Wales Woman of the Year. It's not Di's first award—far from it! In fact, in 2013 she was named Singleton's Citizen of the Year. Di is involved in just about everything. Everywhere I go in support of a good cause, Di is there too. There are many examples, but her work with the Red Cross, where she has been the recipient of a Humanitarian Partner Award, stands out. But Di is possibly best known for her many years at TheSingleton Argus, where she first worked after leaving high school in 1980. Yes, Di is a fully-fledged local! Di went on to become a long-serving editor of The Singleton Argus. There can be no doubt Di was not fully remunerated for the hours she dedicated to her role there. Both as a journalist and editor, Di used her position for the common good. She didn't just report on and oversee the news; she helped shape it. Her work with the Red Cross and newspaper came together in 1999 when the government decided Singleton's army camp would become host to 500 displaced people from war-torn Kosovo. Di was quick to realise that the men, women and children being given safe haven would need the support of the local community and that it would be important to ensure the community had all the facts. Di knew that misinformation or even a dearth of information would fuel community suspicion of and opposition to the safe-haven arrangement. She fought for special access to the camp for her local newspaper to ensure all the facts were known in the community and to foster local sympathy and support for the refugees. Di's efforts met with spectacular success and history now records how warmly the Kosovo people were received in the local community and, indeed, how generous Singleton residents were toward them. They donated toys and other goods and volunteered to provide English lessons. Local sporting clubs organised coaching clinics for the new arrivals and local musicians provided entertainment. The responsive residents made us all proud. The pride of the Kosovo people brought the best out in all of us. Di Sneddon made sure the community response was the right response. Without her leadership it could have been a different one. Misinformation causes both suspicion and anger. Again showing great courage, Di recently became part of a new community newspaper venture where she continues to lead and shape community attitudes. Di Sneddon is a local legend and is deserving of every accolade and award she has received. Congratulations on the latest recognition, Di. I'm proud to count you as a friend. (Time expired)
Education Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
Armenia, Azerbaijan | Constituency Statements | House debates
Over the past two months, the Armenian Australian community has been in a state of overwhelming devastation, shock and despair as they've witnessed their homeland desecrated at the hands of...
Over the past two months, the Armenian Australian community has been in a state of overwhelming devastation, shock and despair as they've witnessed their homeland desecrated at the hands of Azerbaijani forces including paid, Turkish-backed Syrian mercenaries. On 27 September 2020, the enemy forces launched large-scale attacks against Armenians of the Nagorno-Karabakh region. Watching this unfold from halfway around the world, today Armenian Australians are gathering outside our parliament to demand an end to the carnage being played out in Artsakh. The relative silence of the international community, including us here in Australia, is of course of great concern to those gathering outside parliament today. Azerbaijan's 44-day military aggression against the indigenous Armenians of Artsakh involved alleged war crimes through the use of cluster and white phosphorus munitions, as well as attacks on Armenian churches, hospitals, civilians and schools. Russia has brokered a ceasefire deal, but it means much of this part of the Armenian Australian community's ancestral homeland is now under occupation. The community represented by the protests outside this building today rejects the ceasefire terms imposed on Armenia and Artsakh as a one-sided deal which ignores the fundamental human right to self-determination of the people of Artsakh, who declared their independence in the 1991 referendum in accordance with international law. Coincidentally, the 29th anniversary of the expression of their democratic rights is tomorrow. The people of Armenia and Artsakh are reeling from the aftershock of six weeks of violence, with the primary battlefields shifting from the trenches to the cities, where the Armenian community is rallying to help refugees, the injured, the traumatised, the orphaned and the widowed. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 10 : 03 to 10 : 18 The pathway to a lasting peace in the Nagorno-Karabakh region is international community recognition of the Republic of Artsakh, and Australia should support that recognition. In the meantime, Australia must be more vocal in its condemnation of human rights abuses in the Nagorno-Karabakh region and offer aid to those suffering. If the plight of the Armenians is not enough to compel us to act, reports of Islamist terrorists taking positions on the Iran-Armenia border should.
Member for Hunter: Shadow Cabinet | Adjournment | House debates
Walking away from Labor's shadow cabinet was obviously not an easy decision for me. The reasons are many and obvious. The issue I want to speak to tonight is the impact on my staff. As a result...
Walking away from Labor's shadow cabinet was obviously not an easy decision for me. The reasons are many and obvious. The issue I want to speak to tonight is the impact on my staff. As a result of my decision, three people in my office lost the jobs they held with me. When I spoke at my press conference about my decision three weeks ago I had intended to speak about my shadow ministerial staff and pay tribute to them. Alas, the weight of the moment and the length of the press conference caused me to lose my way and I omitted to do so. So I want to do so tonight. I'd like to thank and pay tribute to Mark Abernethy and Kate Boyd, who served me loyally, energetically and very effectively for the last 18 months. But I also want to talk about my former chief of staff, Natasa Sikman, who worked with me for more than 10 years—first when I was Chief Government Whip, then a minister—albeit for a short time—and then, for a long period of time, shadow minister for agriculture and later the shadow minister for both agriculture and resources. In opposition you need people with agility and flexibility. In the top job you need an all-rounder, and Natasa Sikman was certainly that. I'm sure she'll be certainly that in a new job in the future. Over the course of that decade Natasa did media, administration, people management, stakeholder management, legislative management, policy development, parliamentary management and parliamentary tactics, and, of course, had to deal with the madness of her boss! Natasa built Labor's country caucus—one of her bigger achievements. She developed Labor's successful 2009 forestry policy—for the first time in many decades the industry rated Labor's forestry policy to be superior to that of those who now serve in the government—and she did so after extensive negotiation and consultation with industry and unions. It was a magnificent outcome for the party. In the Chief Government Whip's office, she managed to steer the Labor team—a minority government—through around two years without losing a single vote on the floor of the House of Representatives—again, no small achievement. I thank Natasa for her service, loyalty, guidance, advice, patience, skill and hard work. Natasa Sikman is a great loss to me and a great loss, I believe, to the Australian Labor Party. I wish her well and I wish her family well. The other thing I failed to do three weeks ago was acknowledge and thank the many industry stakeholders I've been engaged with for seven years as the shadow minister for agriculture and for a while as the minister for agriculture but also over the course of the last 18 months as the shadow minister for agriculture and resources. In the agriculture space there are too many to name, but obviously there are the National Farmers Federation; the state based farm groups; industry leaders; the investors themselves; all those in the value chain; all those who produce our food and fibre; our growers and producers; those who work in areas like crop protection, which aren't always obvious, and in animals and medicines, which are always obvious to the casual observer of the agriculture sector; environmental groups who are important stakeholders; and, of course, the trade union movement. In the resources sector: investors and executives in oil, gas and mining companies; the Minerals Council of Australia; the NSW Minerals Council; all those councils and peak groups in every state right around the country; organisations like APPEA and many more; and, of course, again, our great trade union movement. I've been very fortunate to have fantastic relationships with so many groups and so many people within those groups, and with so many people who work hard, both on the land and, of course, in our industries, like oil and gas and coal and in mining more generally. It's been a great journey for me. I thank them for their consultation and engagement, and I thank many of them, if not most of them—indeed, if not all of them—for their friendship. I make this commitment to both those in agriculture and in resources: Joel Fitzgibbon is going nowhere, and I will continue to be a very strong advocate on their behalf.
Workplace Relations | Constituency Statements | House debates
On this government's watch, many of our coalmining companies have dramatically increased their use of labour hire companies. I support our coalmining companies. They pay lots of tax, which we, of...
On this government's watch, many of our coalmining companies have dramatically increased their use of labour hire companies. I support our coalmining companies. They pay lots of tax, which we, of course, use to build schools, hospitals and roads and, most importantly, they create hundreds of thousands of jobs, including many thousands of jobs in my own electorate. But I don't support the use of labour hire for the sole purpose of lowering the cost of doing business, at the expense of our mineworkers. We have far too many mineworkers working alongside their mates on less pay and without all the leave and other entitlements enjoyed by their mates. At BHP's Mt Arthur mine, for example, a mineworker working for the company under the enterprise agreement secured by the union earns $159,000 a year, while his or her mate working alongside him or her earns only $106,000 working for the labour hire company—and, in this case, a labour hire company wholly owned by the mining company, BHP. In other words, it was established for one purpose only. So same job, different pay; same roster, different pay; and same hours, different pay—year in, year out. Labor went to the 2019 election promising to fix this by inserting into the Fair Work Act an objective definition of what is a casual employee. At the time, members of the government, including Senator Matt Canavan, ran around the electorate saying, 'We already got this covered; we have a bill in the House to fix this.' Mysteriously, that bill just disappeared after the election. But, worse, that bill would have made the situation worse for our coalminers, because what that bill is about and what this government is really about is overtaking the so-called WorkPac case, where the Federal Court said, 'If it walks like a duck and squawks like a duck, it's probably a duck,' and found that these mineworkers year in, year out, on the same roster, working the same days are entitled to the same rate of pay as their mates working for the mining company. This government is now joining with the companies in the court to appeal the WorkPac decision—in other words, to do over our mineworkers. One Nation says that it supports our mineworkers; yet down here, day in, day out, One Nation senators support this anti-worker government. If One Nation is serious about backing our coalminers, they should join with Labor and do something about this overcasualisation.
Climate Change | Private Members' Business | House debates
I'm going to resist responding to the provocation of the member for Hughes because I will run out of time, but I respect his contribution—I mean, the member for Hughes does show a keen...
I'm going to resist responding to the provocation of the member for Hughes because I will run out of time, but I respect his contribution—I mean, the member for Hughes does show a keen interest in this important subject. But extreme views from the Right, just like extreme views from the Left, are our biggest challenge within this debate. We need a consensus on this important issue. That's why I rise to oppose the motion from the member for Clark, not because I disagree with everything he says in his motion—in fact, there are points on which we can absolutely agree—but I have no opportunity to amend the motion so therefore I am left with no choice but to oppose it. We've been having these climate wars now for more than 20 years, and sadly I've been around for more than 20 years and have been involved in them. The only way we're going to front up to our responsibilities as a country is to work with the international community and to build a consensus here at home. We need to be realists, not idealists. I remind members of the House that 90 per cent of our country's energy still comes from fossil fuel sources, and of course I'm not just talking about the electricity generation sector, which usually focuses the minds of most people—that's what the member for Hughes spent most of his time talking about. I'm also talking about our planes and our cars and our trucks and our mining equipment and our tractors and other equipment on our farms. I'm talking about heating for our manufacturing plants. All of these things rely heavily on fossil fuels. There will be a time—sadly, I won't be around, neither in this place or else well—when we won't be so dependent on fossil fuels, but it is a long way down the track. We use coal to make steel, we use gas as feedstock, we use gas to keep us warm, we use gas to cook and, of course, we use gas to make PPE—a very topical product at this point in time. We have had our industrial revolution. That is behind us, but many other countries around the world are still having theirs, and they can't come into modernity without the assistance of fossil fuels—many of which will come from our country. Adani builds a mine in Central Queensland. What for? To provide its industrial revolution in India. Should we deny them that? No. But what we should do is work as an international community to ensure that we address this very important challenge. The climate is changing in adverse ways. Mankind is making a contribution. Mankind needs to do something about it. That's what the Paris Agreement is all about. We have signed the Paris Agreement, and Scott Morrison, our Prime Minister, should fulfil his obligations under Paris. But it is apparent to me that he is not on track to do so—and he needs to get on track to do so. He needs to stop listening to the extreme right, to stop listening to the extreme left, stop putting domestic votes in front of his responsibility as a Prime Minister and get on with it. We know the Greens don't really want to address climate change. We saw that when they voted against Kevin Rudd's CPRS. We saw that when they Adani convoy through Central Queensland—because they wanted to whip up the debate, because that wins them votes. Where would the Greens party be without climate change? What would they campaign on? What would be their relevance? How would they raise funds if they didn't have climate change? They don't want to fix this problem. The centre of Australian politics has to fix this problem and sensible people in this place need to get together and do so. There is a thing called the economy. We can walk and chew gum at the same time. The market is moving. It will move without government, but it needs the guiding hand of government. This government needs to embrace an energy policy so that business investors have a certain environment in which to invest. That's what we need to doing. These silly climate wars are making that difficult. As reluctant as I am to say it, the motion from the member for Clark isn't helpful. I'm sure it will win him a few votes in Hobart, but it won't save jobs in Central Queensland and it won't lead to any real and meaningful action on climate change.
Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2020-2021, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2020-2021, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2020-2021; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
They really should stay and listen to this, Mr Deputy Speaker. They might learn something! He's certainly the first Treasurer since the Second World War who has been given an opportunity to rack...
They really should stay and listen to this, Mr Deputy Speaker. They might learn something! He's certainly the first Treasurer since the Second World War who has been given an opportunity to rack up eye-watering debt and deficit with very little criticism from the opposition parties, the business community or, indeed, the community more generally. I also said at the National Press Club, 'Let's hope that the debt he has raised on behalf of the Australian community is money well spent in our economy.' Now, I also said on that occasion that it will be some time before we know the answer to that question, before we know whether the way the money was spent maximises economic stimulus, maximises job retention and creation, and maximises our opportunity to give a helping help to those who are most adversely affected. I fear today that we might not have to wait as long as I thought we might. I think we can all already see signs of cracks appearing in the budget strategy. Economic commentators everywhere are talking about the economic inefficiency of the spend. For example, I think it was Ross Gittins who said investment in social housing would have given more stimulus, alongside a long-lasting impact on our infrastructure and, indeed, on some of our poorer communities. We can see that the precipitous withdrawal of JobKeeper was probably unwise. I suspect the government has left the opportunity open to address that. Let's hope it does, because it's very clear that the economy hasn't yet sunk to its lowest depths, that things will get worse, and people will need ongoing assistance. I'm very disappointed in the decision to allow only those 35 years of age and under to benefit from the so-called JobMaker scheme. It makes no sense to me. We know, because commentators have reacted and responded to this constraint by analysing who have been most hurt, that the reality is that those who have been most hurt are our older Australians, many of whom are still of working age. It makes no sense to target only those under 35 years of age. This is an issue that the government really needs to revisit and consider. Economic commentators and social commentators also expressed concern that the government hasn't adequately addressed the issues in aged care in all of our communities. I doubt there's a member of this place that doesn't have issues in aged care in the community. We have wonderful aged-care providers. Quality aged-care providers still dominate the sector. Unfortunately, there are a few for-profit providers who haven't lived up to the expectations. But none of them can perform without the resourcing they need from government. I'm old enough to hark back to the good old days when the state governments ran nursing homes full of nurses and other health professionals, cleaning staff and all the people you need to make a nursing home a hygienic place, a professionally-run place and a place which can serve both the medical and social needs of residents. It's a big black mark on our society that we have allowed those standards to decline over time in the name of fiscal constraint. Moreover, it's a great shame that we didn't take this opportunity, in this pandemic and this economic crisis, to address that. I say to the Prime Minister and the Treasurer: it is not too late. This was my 25th budget—though, I'm reluctant to say that because it might suggest that I'm a little bit older than I look. Of course, every budget is different. Every budget night I have sat through has been an interesting budget night but there's basically a similar process and there are similar outcomes in terms of their political environment. I was here for all of the John Howard era. Of course, John Howard benefited from the hard-won reforms of the Hawke and Keating governments and, save for a shaky period during the early part of their term, which was the Asian financial crisis, John Howard and Peter Costello had a pretty easy ride. The global economy was strong. They had rivers of income into the government coffers. They were able to deliver tax cuts, for example, as a consequence and bank some money away for rainy days. So they had it pretty easy. The next budget delivered outside the bounds of normality, as I might describe it, was the 2009 budget, where a Labor government, of course, was dealing with all the consequences of the global financial crisis. In my view, budgets—now more than ever—are not much of a statement of a government policy. They are certainly a statement of government intention in terms of the revenue it intends to raise and the money it intends to spend. The budget remain a very, very important document and budget night remains an important occasion. Both of those things send important signals to the market and provide a level of transparency to the market and our communities collectively. As hard as Prime Ministers and Treasurers and indeed the media try, budget nights aren't the time when the government's political narrative for the year and the years ahead are set. Long gone are the days when the 'Cigs are up! Beer's up!' headline was raised the day after the budget, in the days before the indexation of excise. All the big issues now tend to happen outside the budget cycle. Of course, the budget itself is pre-empted by enormous leaks ahead of the big occasion, and both the markets and the community know well in advance where the government is heading. I'd like to talk about that political narrative and the way in which it happens outside of the budget process—although arguably the 2014 budget was an exception to the rule because the aggressive fiscal brutality that marked it had a long-lasting impact, and it was, in my view, probably the beginning of the end of the Abbott government. The big three enduring divisive political disrupters in my more than 24 years were, in my view, the arrival of asylum seekers by boat, the former Labor government's climate change policies, and the Howard government's Work Choices legislation. Each of those had immediate but also enduring impacts. Of course, there were plenty of other big events and policies along the way, but none had the enduring and divisive impacts of the three I've identified. Work Choices might be the less obvious of the three in terms of its enduring effect, but John Howard's overreach has been a lasting break on the anti-worker obsessions of the Liberal and National parties. The arrival of the MV Tampa in August 2001 was an invitation to the Howard government to harness and unleash a latent xenophobia in our communities and in some pockets of our nation a level of racism that left me shocked and disillusioned. I feel no ill will towards any citizen who left me feeling disappointed at that time or, indeed, in later times, but I do remain angry that an Australian government was prepared and willing, in the earliest days of the 21st century, when we should have been more enlightened, to deploy the politics of fear and to work so hard to divide our communities for its own political gain. Tampa is not so enduring in and of itself, but the demons that the government's response unleashed are, and they impact on the dynamic of this place still—every day. It gave a voice to a darker side of our society, and it has worked more than once in political terms for the Liberal and National parties. The dog whistle is now embedded in the modus operandi of the coalition parties, and it manifests itself in range of political and policy strategies to this day. The contemporary example, of course, is the Morrison government's approach to our relationship with China, our largest and most important trading partner, where it is putting its quest for domestic and political advantage ahead of the national interest. Of the three big disruptors, climate change trumps them all. History will treat badly all those who have sought political advantage by exploiting the opportunity created by those who have taken seriously our responsibility to act on climate change. By the way, I count John Howard amongst the political victims. His belated 2007 commitment to an emissions trading scheme was seen for what it was: a belated, last-ditch effort to right the wrong. But the electorate saw through it. Tony Abbott made a carbon tax scare campaign the centrepiece of his 2013 election strategy—successfully so, sadly. He was so successful that he was able to claim a mandate to repeal the Gillard government's Clean Energy Act 2011. That was one of the most irresponsible actions I've seen in this parliament. I think Tony Abbott could have been much better than that. If the Gillard government's architecture had still been in place, the carbon price would be very low and our economy would be operating at the same strength it would have been without it. Our jobs situation would be the same, but our carbon emissions would be lower. As to the GST, no-one would even know it was there. John Howard introduced the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target probably more than two decades ago. It was, if you like, our first carbon tax—modest, but it was our first constraint on carbon in the market. Two decades on, we are still without a market mechanism designed to put downward pressure on greenhouse gas emissions. We should reflect on that: two decades on from when John Howard first put a market based mechanism in place, we are still without one, and our carbon growth is basically flatlining. In other words, it's going nowhere near meeting the obligations we gave ourselves when Malcolm Turnbull signed the Paris Agreement. The current Prime Minister thinks he can fulfil our commitments to Paris without a market based mechanism. He certainly hasn't always thought that, because the government certainly had a few goes—three goes, in fact. There was the Clean Energy Target and so on in recent years, but he now says he can make it. I hope he can. Like the budget, it won't be the most economically efficient way of getting there, but, if he can get there, that would be a good thing. My problem is he's not on par to getting there. In this place, we need to put the politics of carbon and climate change behind us and work together to do our bit and meet our responsibilities with the commitments we made at Paris. We need to do our bit as a small player and make our contribution to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions around the world. Of course, we need to do it in a responsible and sensible way, but we'll only do it successfully if we put the politics behind us, work together to deliver what both the local community and the international community expects of us.