Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Disclaimer: The Parliamentary Library does not warrant the accuracy of closed captions. These are derived automatically from the broadcaster's signal.
Order In The House -

View in ParlView

(generated from captions) (LAUGHS) when I wake up I mean, there are some mornings I really should do some dusting. and I think to myself, "Ooh, "Sod that, for a game of soldiers," And then I think, and I have a hazelnut yoghurt. the pictures on my own. Last night I went to at the box office, I said to the girl that Sandra Bollocks film." "I want one ticket for but I didn't care. She looked at me a bit askance, I had popcorn and a hotdog, and I thoroughly enjoyed myself. taking a real risk, "If you feel like

with you in the not too distant... I'd quite fancy an outing Shall we go and paint the town red?" What do you say? Could you cope?" Or blue, in my case. Probably not. is a man at the door Must go, as there wanting to read the bastard meter. Potterton's ready for this. Oh, dear. I don't think Little (PLAYS INDISTINCT TUNE) (HITS WRONG NOTES) My very dear Irene, in my mind for an occasion I've been casting around to take you to, it might be appropriate

cursing affliction. with your current pirouettes' syndrome - I wonder if you have on reality TV. a case of which I saw recently Do you have any other symptoms? for instance? Zapping people or spitting, release all sorts of inhibitions. I believe a bang on the head can could have been stopped Most serial killers

with a timely frontal lobotomy. to the WI Autumn Fair In any case, a visit doesn't seem like a good idea. take kindly to obscene name-calling. I don't think our chairwoman would I've often been tempted. Though, goodness knows, the solution, though. I think, I might have hit upon about to give their seasonal treat Our local Amdram Society is at the Asta Arts And Crafts Centre. So, how about coming to that? language flies about Hehe. There's so much between those theatrical types a silly old bugger to his face, that if you called one of them I don't doubt they'd even notice. Oh, they are a gay crowd. are notoriously pleasant. And their first nights in the bar before...and after. Everyone gets squiffy

And on one occasion, during, were anything to go by. if King Lear's hiccups at one or other of the houses. And there's always a party I've been invited once or twice. I mean, I've never been. Though,

Gerald couldn't abide that crowd. as the suede-shoe brigade. He always referred to them to get him to go to a show - The only time I managed that boring thing about two tramps - a woman out of the seat in front. he sneezed violently and kicked Was my face red?! (MAN GRUNTS) (WOMAN SQUEALS) Antiques And Collectibles Club, Gordon Scarf, the president of our right next to me. directed it, and he was sitting gin and tonics later, I plied him with on Gerald's hay fever. and tried to blame the sneezing Speaking of which, the Asta players are giving. that's the title of the piece

light and not at all arty, I believe it's quite of your poor old gray matter. so it shouldn't tax what's left It opens on the Thursday, stay for the rest of the weekend? so why not come that afternoon and some more places we can visit And I'll try to think of without giving offence. to the head is very intriguing. This business about a blow I was hit by a flying brick once - trying to get my attention. a wolf-whistling brick-layer I was concussed for a week. And afterwards, I married Gerald. Now, you've started me wondering. all my love - Vera. Till next week, my dear, SIREN WAILS BIG DOG BARKS Cell 4, Grassthorpe Police Station. from the above address, Dear Vera, as you can see and need your help. I am in dire straits I went to meet the girls - After getting back from yours, whom you met on Ladies' Night, Beryl Mannering, Judith Brains and Marjorie Bostop - of their credit-crunch offers. at Superdrug, to take advantage price of two on everything. You know, three for the they usually make. Just shows what profit into conversation about my arrest. Well, over the baby wipes, we fell Outside, the roads were up. Blocked drains...again. And there was a bulldozer. Oh, no. So... to demonstrate Well, I used the opportunity exactly what had happened to me. Uh. Inspector Graver saw me, As fate would have it and booked me on the spot. apparently repeating my offence, Oh, Irene! Closed Captions Provided By CSI

This Program is Captioned


Welcome to Order In The

House. It is a review of the

week in Federal Parliament. Why

didn't she just pick up the

phone to Alan Joyce and ask him

not to ground the fleet? I

have made it very clear to the

CEO of Qantas that I do not

should believe this extreme action

should have been taken. When it

comes to border protection,

this is a government which

should simply have died of

shame. People dying at sea,

their priority is to come in

here and run these sorts of

political lines, Mr Speaker.

In the wake of the Qantas

grounding, the Opposition

accused the Government of

sitting on its hands, instead

of acting quickly to avert the

travel chaos. Questions

without notice, are there without notice, are there any

questions, the leader of the

opposition? Thanks Mr Speaker.

My question is to the PM. I

refer the PM to the 48 hours of

airport chaos that she could

have prevented and I ask why

didn't she immediately

reference terminate this dispute, without

reference to a tribunal, as she

could have, under her Fair Work

Act, thereby avoiding so much

damage to hundreds of thousands

of Australians and so much of Australians and so

damage to Australia's

international standing. Hear,

hear!. SPEAKER: Order. Order.

PM. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

Speaker. I am unsurprised by

the leader of the Opposition's

question coming as it does with

the leader of the Opposition

showing his usual negativity

and playing politics over the

last few days, as the

Government has pursued the

national interest and ensured,

through our swift action, that

Qantas planes are returning to

the sky today and that

industrial action is at an end

and that the parties will now

be brought together in a

conciliation and if that

conciliation is unsuccessful,

then an arbitration, a

determination by Fair Work

Australia will occur. Mr

Speaker, what the Government

has ensured, by its swift

action, is that industrial

action is over. SPEAKER: The PM

resume her seat.

The PM was asked a question, the

the PM is responding to a

question. It is not an

invitation for those on my left

to canvass everything under the

sun. The member for bow man is

warned. The PM. Thank you sun.

very much, Mr Speaker. I again

make the point that the course

of action the Government

embarked on has given us the results

results we wanted to see, which

is an end of industrial action

and Qantas planes taking back

to the sky so that people can

proceed on their travel plans

with certainty. I have been

very concerned about the

circumstances of stranded

passengers as I have said

publicly, and I am happy publicly, and I am happy to

repeat in this place, I view

Qantas's action on Saturday as

extreme. I view it as extreme

because they stranded tens of

thousands of people around our

nation and around the world and

with the industrial action now

at an end, those passengers can

start seeing Qantas planes fly

again and be able to resume

their journeys. SPEAKER: The

leader of the

Opposition. Supplementary to leader

the PM, once the PM was aware

of what was about to occur at 5

o'clock on Saturday afternoon,

why didn't she just pick up the

phone to Alan Joyce and ask him

not to ground the fleet? Was

this too hard for you PM?

Friday, Qantas was indicating

publicly that it was still

involved in negotiating this

dispute. Saturday, around 2

o'clock, Qantas advised

Government ministers,

particularly the minister for

transport, that Qantas was

grounding the planes at 5 p.m.

No ifs - SPEAKER: The member

for Dixon is warned. The

member for Dixon is warned.

Thank you very much, Mr

Speaker. The CEO of Qantas

advised, particularly the

minister for transport, around

2 o'clock that planes would be grounded

grounded at 5 in preparation of

a lock-out. The CEO of Qantas

made it perfectly clear to the

minister that he was not

requesting that the Government

do anything, he was not seeking

to discuss the matter, that the

decision had been made by the

Qantas board and the decision

would be implemented. So, in

the face of that advice when I

received it from relevant

ministers, what I did was,

rather than talk, I acted. So

the Leader of the Opposition, a

man given to things like boat

phone might have spent endless

days chat, chat, chat, as

thousands of passengers were stranded.

stranded. He might have done that. What I prefer to do was

to act. So I determined

immediately that the Government

would act, we would intervene

in this dispute. We made

application to Fair Work

Australia - SPEAKER: The member

for Cowper is warned. - we made

application to Fair application to Fair Work

Australia quickly. An urgent

hearing started Saturday night

and concluded in the small

hours of this morning with a

decision that industrial action

be ceased. With industrial

action now finished, what this means

means is that the substance of

the Qantas dispute will either

be addressed by the industrial

parties through a conciliation

or it will be arbitrated by or it

Fair Work Australia if the

industrial parties within a

21-day period do not sought out

the dispute. SPEAKER: The

leader of the Nationals.

Thank you Mr Speaker. My

question is to the minister of

transport. On how many

occasions, prior to 2 p.m. occasions, prior to 2 p.m. on

Saturday, did Qantas advise the

minister that if industrial

unrest continued, it may have

to ground its fleet? SPEAKER:

The minister for infrastructure

and transport. Thank you very

much. And I thank the

honourable member for his

maiden question on aviation in

four and a half years. I thank

him sincerely. Obviously if

the Shadow Minister had access

to Sky he would know that I

have indicated, very clearly,

that this morning, after Mr

Joyce gave an interview with

Fran Kelly, I rang Mr Joyce and

informed him that I would be

making public the fact that on

no occasion, no occasion, had

Qantas ever raised the issue of

a lock-out of its work force -

SPEAKER: Order. The member for

Sturt - order, the member for

Sturt will resume his seat.

Order, the member for Lyons. The

The member for Dawson. Order.

Minister for Infrastructure

and Transport. The member for

Sturt will resume his seat.

The minister - order. The

minister for Infrastructure and Transport. Thank you, Mr

Speaker. Mr Joyce will confirm

that on no occasion, no

occasion, did Qantas ever raise

the issue about lock-out of its

work force - if you listened -

of a lock-out of its work force

to myself or any other

Government minister. SPEAKER: The minister - questions

without notice, are there any

questions? The leader of the

Opposition. Thanks, Mr Speaker.

My question is to the PM. I

refer the PM to her immediate

ban on live cattle exports in

response to Bob Brown and the

Greens in June and I contrast

that with the 48 hours of airport chaos that resulted

from her dithering on Saturday.

I ask why is this PM more

concerned to panneder to the

Greens than she is to protect

the Australian travelling

public? Hear, hear!. SPEAKER:

The house will come to order.

The PM has the call. I thank the

the leader of the Opposition

for his question. I must admit

I did commence to laugh at the start of it because I thought

the leader of the Opposition was

was moving off Qantas and was moving off Qantas and I

would have known why if he was

moving off Qantas today,

because having spent all of

that time yesterday yelling and

screaming for answers about who

knew what when, what happens

today? The leader of the

Opposition twice refuses to

answer a question about when he

knew when Qantas was going to

lock its workers out and ground

the planes. When did the Leader

of the Opposition know? When the

did he know that tens of thousands

thousands of passengers were

going to be stranded? When did

he know - SPEAKER: PM will

resume her seat.

SPEAKER: The house will

settle down. The PM has the

call. She will be heard in

silence. The PM. Thank you going

very much, Mr Speaker. I am

very happy to answer the Leader

of the Opposition's question

because I think all the facts,

every fact about this dispute

should be before the Australian

people. Every fact about

contact with Qantas, every fact

about who knew what when and

maybe the Leader of the

Opposition might like to apply

the same standard to himself.

He's always so eager to apply

to others. In here yesterday

screaming at the top of his

voice for answers and today a

man stunned into a humbling

silence. To the Leader of the

Opposition I say this - what

the Government did on Saturday

was the appropriate was the

appropriate conduct - SPEAKER:

The member for Cook will leave

the chamber for half an

hour. Was the appropriate

conduct for a Government that

understands that the workplace relations system is about

balance t is about treating the

interests of employers and

employees in balance, it is

about making sure that there is

fairness to all. It is about

making sure there is not

industrial disruption that threatens the national

interest. That is the approach

of the Government and that is

the approach we took and consequently we moved on

Saturday afternoon to bring this

this dispute to an end and it

was at an end by yesterday

afternoon with planes back in

the sky. A balanced approach to

the interests of employers and employees, always guided by

what is in the interests of the

national economy and the

travelling public. What has

amazed me during the course of

the last few days, Mr Speaker,

is with Qantas having decided on

on Saturday to dramatically

escalate this dispute, to

engage in a lock-out of its

work force, to ground planes

with no appropriate notice to

the travelling public so that

tens of thousands of people

were stranded away from home,

unable to get to work, unable

to get back to their loved ones, that in those

circumstances, Mr Speaker, the

Leader of the Opposition has

not uttered one word of

criticism of Qantas, not one

word. Not one word of criticism

of Qantas after they stranded

tens of thousands of

passengers. We know why that

is. Perhaps actually we know is. Perhaps actually we only

know part of why that is. We

know part of it is because the

Opposition Leader's attitude

towards industrial relations is give the employers everything

they want every time and smash

into the workers, that is what

work choices was about. What we

don't quite know is all of the

details about the Leader of the

Opposition's interactions with

Qantas because he's now engaged

in a cover-up of that. SPEAKER:

The leader of the Opposition. A

supplementary question to the

PM. Given the answers she's

just given, I invite her to

rightly criticise union

leaders, such as Tony Sheldon

and Steve Pervinos, in Tony's

case, has told the Australian

public they should punish

Qantas and in Steve's case,

he's advised the Australian

public not to travel on Qantas.

Is she prepared to say these

people should not be vandalising

vandalising an Australian

national icon. Let me say this,

if the pilots or transport

workers or licensed aircraft

engineers or any other pivotal

part of Qantas's work force had

walked off the job at 2 p.m. on

Saturday and grounded flights

at 5 p.m. on Saturday, I would

have uttered every same word of

criticism as I have uttered at

Qantas and I would have taken

the matter to Fair Work

Australia. I would have sought

to have the industrial action

terminated if any working union

or any working person had

or engaged in conduct that

destructive then I would have -


. SPEAKER: If the assistant

Treasurer and the member for

fadden want to have a

discussion, they can have it

outside if they continue.

Can we interrupt the member

for Paterson by continuing or

is he happy? The PM has the

call. She should be heard in

silence. The PM. Thank you silence.

very much, Mr Speaker. I would have been as critical of that

action as I was of Qantas's

action. I would have described

them both as extreme decisions

and I would have had the

Government respond in precisely

the same way. That is because I

believe in balancing the

interests of employees and

trade unions and employers in

work places. That is what the

Fair Work Act is all about.

That is why work choices was so

wrong. There is a pendulum in industrial relations between

the interests of employees and

employers and it is the job of

Government to keep that

pendulum in the

centre. SPEAKER: The leader of

the Opposition. I seek leave to

make a personal explanation. SPEAKER: Does the

Leader of the Opposition claim

to be misrepresented? I do. In

Question Time today by both the

PM and the minister for

transport, who claimed that I

didn't answer a question about

what time I was informed about

the action that Qantas was

going to take. Well, Mr

Speaker, let me just read from

the transcript of my press

conference today. Mr Abbott, at

what time on Saturday were you

or your office informed about

the action that Qantas was

going to take. "My

understanding is that my office

was first informed at about

quarter past 4 and I heard

about it just before 5

o'clock". Mr Speaker, the PM

and the minister for transport

also claimed that I somehow had

prior notice of what Qantas

intended to do. Let me

reiterate, the first I heard

about it was at about quarter

to 5 on Saturday afternoon. If

the PM and the minister for

transport have any doubt, I

refer them to a transcript of

Steve Price on 2GB. He said he

was beside me when I first

learned about it. If I had

prior notice of what Qantas was

intending, I would hardly have

booked myself and my family on

Qantas the following day. I

suggest to the PM and the

minister for transport they

should stop fant sighing about

me and start apology jiesing

for the massive damage they have inflicted on the Australian

Australian public. The tragic

sinking of a boat carrying

asylum seekers bound for

Australia reignited debate over

border protection. I inform

the house that the PM will be

absent from Question Time today

and tomorrow. She is

representing Australia at the

G20. Voice permitting, I will

answer questions. SPEAKER:

Would members please - order!.

Questions without notice, are there any questions? The

leader of the Opposition. Mr

speaker, my question is to the

acting PM. I remind him that

since the present Government reversed

reversed the previous border

protection laws, there have

been 12,942 boat arrivals on

more than 250 boats. There are

4,500 people currently in detention including 440

children and two boats that we know

know of have been lost at sea

with tragic loss of life. I

ask can the acting PM inform

the house what immediate steps

the Government will now take to

stop the boats? SPEAKER: The

acting PM. On the first point,

it is to acknowledge the

tragedy which has occurred off

Indonesia and the tragic loss

of life. That is why we, on

this side of the house, have

been so determined to break the

people smugglers model and to

do it, Mr Speaker, through a

genuine - SPEAKER: The acting

PM has the call. Order. To do

it through genuine regional engagement.

engagement. To send a message

to the people smugglers that

their model is broken and it

won't work. That is why the

Government has been so intent

in putting together this

regional solution. That is why regional

it was such a shame and a tragedy tragedy that the tragedy that the legislation

that we needed to put in place,

because of the High Court

decision, has not been able to

pass this parliament. That is

the only measure that can be

taken to break the people

smugglers model. Those

opposite are not interested in

genuine solutions to this

problem. For our part, we

extend to them again an

invitation to come to this

house with good heart and

acknowledge that we need a

regional solution to stop the

boats from coming. They have

been advised by all of our

senior advisers that the

approaches they are putting

forward will not work. For our

part, we remain committed to a

genuine regional solution. The

Malaysian arrangement is

precisely the sort of humanitarian arrangement that

is required to ensure that we

break that model. Until we

break that model, we will see

tragic deaths at sea. I happen

to be acting PM last December

when that boat hit Christmas

Island. I will never forget

that day. That is one of the

reasons why we are so keen to break

break the people smugglers

model, to put in place a

regional arrangement that deals

properly with this matter so we

can save lives. Hear,

hear!. SPEAKER: The leader of

the Opposition. Mr Speaker, a

supplementary question to the

acting PM. If, as the acting PM

has just informed the house, it

is so important that the Malaysia people swap be put

into effect, will the

Government immediately bring

before the parliament for a

vote the people swap

legislation? SPEAKER: The

acting PM? Mr Speaker, we will bring

bring it before the house when

they vote for it. Hear,

hear!. SPEAKER: Order. The

member for Cook. Thank you, member

Mr Speaker. My question is to

the acting PM. Will the the acting PM. Will the acting

PM finally admit that if the

Government supports the

Coalition's amendments to the

migration bill it could

establish offshore processing

in 148 countries, including reopening reopening the Australian

taxpayer funded processing

centres on Nauru and Manus

Island immediately. SPEAKER:

The acting PM. I see the

Shadow Minister talked about

reopening Nauru, which the

Government has been advised by all

all of our advisers, the same

advisers that advised them when

they were in Government, that Nauru

Nauru simply doesn't work. It

simply doesn't work. Mr Speaker,

Speaker, a few minutes ago the

former member for Cook was on

Sky News and this is what he

had to say. He said 70% of

those who were processed in

Nauru, then went on to receive settlement grants. That is they

came to Australia. This is not

the deterrent, not the

deterrent that those opposite

pretend it is. SPEAKER: The

acting PM le resume his seat.

The member for Cook with a

point of order. On relevance.

My question wasn't about Sky

News International views it was

about whether the Migration Act

- SPEAKER: The member for Cook

will resume his seat. The

only point of order can be on

direct relevance and the acting PM

PM knows his requirements of the standing orders and he has

the call. The acting PM. Mr

Speaker, I was making a point

that there is not a shred of

policy credibility in Nauru

which is what those opposite

are saying. It is why this

Government, why this Government

- SPEAKER: The acting PM will

resume his seat.

Shouting and pointing fingers

is not actually engaging by

listening. The member for

North Sydney should be very

careful. The acting PM has the

call. He should be heard in

silence. Mr Speaker, all they

want to do is play politics

with this issue. On this very

day, after we have seen another

significant tragedy, people

dying at sea, their priority is

to come in here and run these

sorts of political lines. What

we, on this side of the house,

want to see, Mr Speaker, and

what the Australian people want

to see is a genuine solution to

this problem. They want to see

a slugs which looks at the humanitarian concerns, they

don't want to see people dying

at sea. They want to see a

Government that can put in

place policies which break the

people smugglers model and we

know very clearly that Nauru

does not do that which is why

we have always sought a genuine

regional solution and we will

continue to support a genuine

regional solution. They can

continue to play politics, Mr

Speaker, but we are not Speaker, but we are not going

to see them there. I want to

make it very, very clear that the

the Government is not to blame

for the tragedy unfolding in

the waters off Indonesia. The

Opposition is certainly not to

blame for this unfolding

tragedy. There is only one

group of people who are to

blame for this and that is the

people smugglers who are

putting the unwary and the

unwitting at risk on the open

sea. What this tragedy does

remind the house is that it is

important to have a clear and

definite policy to stop the

boats. Mr Speaker, the

Opposition has a policy to stop

the boats. It has been the same

policy for a decade. Our

policy, to stop the boats, is

offshore processing at Nauru,

it is temporary protection

visas and it is turning boats

around where it is safe to do

so. That is our policy and it

is a policy that has worked. It

is a policy that has worked in

the past and a policy that can

work again in the future. They

say that they want their Malaysia

Malaysia people swap deal

supported by the parliament,

well, give the parliament the

chance. Don't be frightened off

the people's representatives,

bring the legislation before

the parliament because, Mr

Speaker, the PM said that it

would be brought before the

parliament on no fewer than six

separate occasions. The PM said separate

it was absolutely imperative

that this legislation be

brought before the parliament.

She said it had to happen

because she wanted our votes to

be recorded. We are happy, we

are happy to have our votes

recorded but they can't be

recorded, they can't be

recorded unless there is a

vote. They can't stop the boats

but please bring on the votes.

Bring on the votes. Here is

your chance to bring on the

votes. Mr Speaker, I tell you

why, I tell you why they don't

want to bring this legislation

before the parliament, they're

not just concerned that they

are going to be outvoted on

this side of the parliament,

they are concerned that they don't even have the numbers on

that side of the parliament.

They don't - they think they

don't even have the numbers on

their side of the parliament.

We know the member for

Fremantle has said she doesn't

support the Malaysia people

swap deal. We know the member

for Chism has said she has

grave reservations about the

Malaysia people swap deal, no

lesser person that the foreign

minister himself, the member

for Griffith has warned his own

government about a lunch to the

right which is what the

Malaysia people swap deal represents. We know this

Government is hopelessly

divided on this issue, we know

because they are telling us.

They are telling us because

they are telling every

journalist who would listen. journalist who would listen. We

know that the minister for

immigration himself supports

offshore processing at Nauru.

We know because his friends in

the cabinet have made it crystal clear to journalists

who have done us the favour of who

telling the whole world. We

know that one of the reasons

why the PM is in such desperate trouble

trouble is because she shopped

at the minister for - shocked

at the minister for

immigration. She's completely

betrayed the minister for

immigration by completely

abandoning any real commitment

to offshore processing. Mr

Speaker, I say to this

Government, do not say that

your policy is to do something

if you lack the numbers in the

parliament to do it. A

Government which lacks the

numbers in the parliament to

put its policies into place is

a Government which has

forfeited its right to govern. forfeited its right to govern.

Hear, hear!. This is an

extraordinary position been put

by the Opposition. Earlier

today, the member for Cook said

that he did not want to

politicise the tragedy. That is

what he said earlier today.

Yet, on the same day that this

has occurred, they interrupt

Question Time, they interrupt numbers

Question Time to bring on a

motion about business in the

house. What's more, is that the

leader of the Opposition, who

has continually used extreme

language about a range of issues,

issues, today said, on the day

of this tragedy, spoke about

the Government dying of shame.

I mean, the sort of language

and political discourse created

by the Leader of the Opposition

is one that does no credit to

his great party, does no credit

to this parliament and does no

credit to this nation. This

nation motion has been moved in

the context of threatening to shut down Question Time yet

again. It was done at quarter

to 3 so that when Playschool comes

comes on around about now, they

will have had their 10 minutes

from the Leader of the

Opposition and the 5 minutes

from the member for Cook. They

did it because they have put

the member for North Sydney in

witness protection. We asked

two questions in a row about

his melting down on the '7.30'

report last night. They shut

Question Time down and the

reason why they shouldn't shut Question Time down is because

we were just getting started.

SPEAKER: The leader of the

house resume his seat. The

leader of the house will resume

his seat. Order! The manager of Opposition business on a of Opposition

point of order. The leader of the

the house is not talking to the

motion at all. If he hasn't got

enough material to talk about

the migration bill - SPEAKER:

The manager of Opposition will

resume his seat. I remind him

that we're actually discussing

the motion for the suspension

of standing and sessional

orders and the reasons why

sessional and standing orders

should be suspended are

relevant. The leader of the

house. This is the person in

charge of this strategy and

their tactics in the parliament, doesn't know that

this is a suspension of

standing orders. What I am

arguing is why Question Time

should have continued and not

been shut down by those

opposite. This is absurd. They

are moving a motion to bring on

a bill that they don't support. Absurd. The Greens expressed

misgivings about the military

mission in Afghanistan after three Australians were killed

by an Afghan National Army soldier. Mr Speaker, Saturday

was a bitter day for Australia

in Afghanistan. Captain Bryce

Duffy, Corporal Ashley Birt and

Lance Corporal Luke Gavin were

killed in action in

Afghanistan. Seven Australian

soldiers were also wounded in

this attack. They are receiving

the best of medical care.

Today, Mr Speaker, in this

place, we share our small part

in the great grief of three

Australian families, knowing

only a small part, not just of

their loved ones sacrifice but

also of their loved ones'

service as well. This was

Captain Bryce Duffy's second

deployment to Afghanistan with

the Mentoring Task Force. He

also served on Operation Yasi

assist earlier this year. Like

every member of the Australian

defence force, he was a proud

volunteer. He volunteered for

this tour of duty in

Afghanistan as well at short

notice after a fellow officer

was wounded in action. He was

a Townsville-based officer of

the fourth field redgement,

royal Australian artillery.

Captain Duffy is survived by

his wife, his mother and

family. Corporal Ashley Birt

was on his first deployment to

Afghanistan. He had previously

served in the Solomon Islands

and was part of Operation Flood

Assist in QLD in January.

Nambour-born and Brisbane-based, Brisbane-based, Corporal Birt

is remembered by his mates as a

great bloke, a larrikin who was

always smiling and as a proud

sapper, who will not be

forgotten by the core.

Corporal Birt is survived by

his parents and by his brother. Lance Corporal Luke Gavin served three tours in Corporal

East Timor and was on his first

deployment to Afghanistan. He

was a skilled soldier, a valued

member of his unit, the second

battalion RAR based in Townsville. Lance Corporal

Gavin put duty first. He is

survived by his wife and their

three children. Mr Speaker,

the element of betrayal makes these deaths particularly

tragic. Australians are

entitled to be dismayed that

our allies apparently can't

entirely be relied upon. This,

is a reflection more on the

malice of the enemy than on the

merits of our cause. It is

freedom as fight that our

soldiers are embarked upon. They,

They, and their mission, as you

would expect, continue to be supported

supported by the Coalition.

Hear, hear!. SPEAKER:

Senator Bob Brown. Thank you

deputy President. This is an

important motion which comes

- SPEAKER: Senator Brown, you

do need to mover the

motion. Which I move and which

comes on the most recent news

of the terrible further loss of

life of three good and true

Australians in the service of

their nation in Afghanistan. In

the deployment of Australians

to positions of great danger in

the service of the nation

overseas, it is incumbent upon

us, as parliamentarians, to

track the safety and security

of - and the progress - of

those service personnel all the

way. I think this parliament

has failed to do that. We do

that as a result of a

commitment from the PM

informing office last year,

which was part of the arrangement with the Greens

have for the first time in a

decade of involvement in

Afghanistan a parliamentary

debate and the PM has committed

to that becoming an annual

feature. We Greens believe that

that debate ought not just be

annual but should be ongoing.

What we see in Afghanistan is

an escalating loss of life of

Australians. It is important

that we reiterate, through

parliamentary debate, what it

is that motivates our nation to

continue to have our service

personnel in growing danger in

Afghanistan and what it is that

we intend to achieve by

continuing to put them in that

grave danger overseas. Here

is the question for every

member of this Parliament to

have to address. Are we willing

to see a loss of lives,

conservatively estimated at

40-plus, on current trends it

will be higher than that, of

good and true, young Australian

defence force personnel, when

there is no goal, no

articulated goal which would articulated goal which would dramatically alter the

circumstances of Afghanis,

which will have been achieved

by 2014, that is effectively

not being achieved now? The

one thing there that we may

argue is the ability of the

Afghan National Army to be able

to, in some way control the

country better than it could do

now. The events of the last few

days show what a hazardous

proposal that is to enjoin with

any degree of certainty. These

three young men, all in their

20s, were Australians who died

in a foreign land because

Australia sent them to war.

Nothing will diminish the

pain so many will feel at their

death. Each death strikes hard,

a family, a neighbourhood, a

network of friends. Their loss

is forever. Each death strikes

hard the Australian defence

force. This debate this

afternoon about the need for

Australia to confirm a date for

the safe return of Australian

troops from Afghanistan cannot

take place without the events

of Saturday upper most in our

mind. Mr acting deputy

President, at times like these,

it is inevitable that our

involvement in Afghanistan is

questioned. Also to question

whether our national interest

demands we be there. I have

argued before and I still argue

now that in our best traditions

as an international citizen,

Australia should play its part

in Afghanistan, that our role

there is critical for our

national security. I have often

said that in the modern world,

Australia's national security

interests extend beyond our

borders and bond our region. We

cannot become safe through

isolation, that we cannot

ignore either the threats or

the responsibilities that come

with the modern


international community. Mr acting deputy President, we

operate in Afghanistan under a

United Nations mandate. It is a

mandate that is renewed

annually. We operate as one of

48 partners in an international

security assistance force. We

are in Afghanistan at the

request of that country and we

are playing our part to ensure

that Afghanistan is no longer a

training ground and an operating base for terrorists.

I don't accept that there's no

goal. Australia has a clearly

defined operational objective

in Afghanistan. It is to train

the fourth brigade of the

Afghan National Army to enable

the ANA to take full

responsibility for security in

Uruzgan province. Mr acting

deputy President, I will recall

saying when defence minister

that I didn't want to see the

men and women of the Australian

Defence Force stay in

Afghanistan one day longer than necessary. My view hasn't

changed. We should complete our

mission, fulfil our objective

and leave as soon as the job is

done. The government introduced

its mine be tax bills, despite

not yet having enough votes to

guarantee their passage. As the Treasurerer would say, every

Australian knows that the

mining boom is delivering

tremendous benefits to our

nation. The mining boom won't

last forever. The resources can

only be dug up and solid once.

We know we need to make the most of our opportunities while

the sun is shining. We also

realise that not everyone is

feeling the benefits of the

boom. Many households are

struggling to make ends meat and

and many businesses are struggling with the high

Australian dollar and

struggling to get the workers

they need. Many of these

businesses can take heart that

the expanding middle class in Asia will bring opportunities

well beyond mining, and sectors

like tourism and other

services. But other businesses

recognise the conditions are

tough. Our nation faces a

fundamental choice. We could do

nothing and sit on our hands.

This would be the easy choice.

But the Government has chosen

the other path. We will act to

seize the opportunities and respond

respond to the challenges of

our patch work economy. We will

not let the coming boom be

squandered like the last. That

is why we're building a fairer,

simpler tax system and a

stronger economy that delivers

for all Australians. The

reforms that I present today

are the cornerstone of that

vision. They are an ambitious

step? A long-term reform

agenda. We recognise that many

businesses are struggling with

the pressures of a patch-work

economy. The minerals resource

rent tax makes it possible to

deliver a billion dollar tax

break for Australia's 2.7 million small businesses an cut

company tax. Mining profits

have jumped 262% in the last

decade. Along with the coal and

iron ore, a large share of

these profits are also shipped

off overseas. The current

arrangements fail to provide an

appropriate return for these

non-renewable resources to the

Australian community who owns

the resources 100%. Royalties

just don't keep up with the

booming profits of our mining

companies. Royalties often take

a flat amount of revenues or

production regardless of

profitability. Taxes on profit

mean the higher your profit the

more tax you pay. Taxes on

mining profit are better for

the nation and the mining

industry. Industry was directly

involved in the development of

these reforms for the resource

tax consultation panel, the

policy transition group, the

resource tax implementation

group and numerous public

submission. Mr Speaker, the

bills that I present on behalf

of the Treasurer to the house

today are the direct result of

the strong cooperation of

industry and the legislative

process. The bills before the

house provide a robust resource

rent tax regime and ensure that

the long term attractiveness

investment in Australian iron

ore and coal is maintained. You

only have to look at the

massive $430 billion pipeline

of investment in the mining

sector and $82 billion this

year alone, to see that the industry has great confidence

in the future. This landmark

legislation led by the

Treasurer and minister for

resources will do so much for

the nation and which deserves

the full support of the

parliament, business sector and

the community. It is up to us here

here today to recognise that

now is the time to act in the

national interest, now is the

time to seize these

opportunities for the sake of

all Australians and in this

generation and those to follow.

On behalf of the Treasurer and

acting PM I commend this bill

to all Australians today and

for generations to come I

commend the bill to the house

today. Hear, hear!. It is a

complicated tax. It is quite

unlike other taxes, such as

income tax or GST. Those taxes

are based on the activities of

the company as a whole. The

accounts of the company form

the starting basis for working

out the particular tax liability. Contrast that with

the MRRT. It taxes profits from

a part of the entity's operations.

operations. From mining

projects that the entity

carries on. There will be

increased accounting

administration, therefore

increased costs to businesses

in #34esh yuring results at the

project level. Resources that

could be put to use more

productively would have to be

deployed at dealing with this

complexity. It would add to the

cost of mining in Australia.

The speech stated that the

package of bills was developed

in partnership with the

resources sector, that being of

course just three miners. Went

on to say it is a direct result on to

of the strong cooperation of industry

industry in the legislative

process. Fair dinkum. This is

just spin. It is gross

exaggeration. Take one example.

Since the first material was

released by the Government, the

mining industry has been

concerned that the complex tax

which requires the application

and nol concepts and principles

in working out the liability,

will mean that the miner is

faced with uncertainty in

calculating the actual liability. When the Government

appointed the policy transition

group chaired by don Arguss it

recommended that in developing

the memorandum to the MRRT

bill, which by the way was

still being downloaded on the

Internet this morning, the

drafters should provide clear

explanations and examples. This

is a bad tax. It will reduce

investment and jobs, it will

reduce the wealth and

retirement incomes of every day

Australians, it will hamper

Australia in global competition

for scarce capital and jobs. At

a time of heightened global

uncertainty, this is precisely

the wrong time to introduce a

complicated comply katd, as I

said tax. There have now been

four different sets of prodge

yeksz of revenue from the

mining tax. The offsetting

expenditures as identified in a Senate report are going to

create a black hole. This tax will

will not raise the moneyy that

the Government is claiming. It

will not raise the money and

yet the Government claims to

have off setting ex prend dur.

That will grow when this tax

fails to deliver the revenue

they claim. The bottom line for

Australia is this tax not only

creates a black hole for the

Australian mining industry, it is

is going to create a black hole

in the budget and it is all

going to be the responsibility

of the Labor Party and the Independents. SPEAKER: The

member for O'Connor. Thank you

Mr Speaker. My question is to

the Treasurer. I refer to the

Government's mining tax which

was negotiated in secret with

the three biggest mining

companies, BHP, Rio and Extrata

to the exclusion of the rest of

the industry. In particular the

revenue prodge yeksz which are

based on secret data and

assumptions that contradict

industry projection. I ask the

Treasurer, why are you not

prepared to guarantee in

legislation that the rest of

the industry will not pay the

tax earlier than the big three

and secondly, why are you not

prepared to guarantee in legislation

legislation that the rest of

the industry will not pay the tax

tax at a higher rate than the

three big companies that helped

design the tax? SPEAKER: The

acting PM. We should call a

spade a spade. The fact is that

there's been a completely

unjustified campaign run by a

number of organisations that

describe themselves as small

miners that somehow this tax

discriminates against small

miners. Mr Speaker - SPEAKER:

Order! Those on the left. The

acting PM has the call. The member

member for Stirling. The

acting PM has the call. Mr

Speaker, this tax does not discriminate

discriminate against small

miners and it will be paid

predominantly by very large

miners. Mr For rest is here

today and was part of a press

conference and he claims to be

a small miner. He has a $20

billion company. A $20 billion

company is not a small

miner. SPEAKER: The member for

Canning. We made a range of changes

changes to the tax over a period

period of time in what has been

probably the most open and

transparent process any piece

of tax legislation has ever

been put through. We went

through the Ferguson/Arguss

review and comprehensive

submissions were made right

through that process. It has

been through two rounds of

consultation through the Tax

Department. Let's get rid of

this that is somehow discriminates

discriminates against small

miners, it does not. We have

put in a new threshold where it

is not paid under $50 million

and phases out through to $100

million. This is complete rubbish. As

rubbish. As far as Mr For rest

is concerned, when he put on

the public record all the

changes he wanted on 29 June

last year, we implemented every

single one of them, every

single one of them. SPEAKER:

The acting PM will resume his

seat. The member for O'Connor

on a point of order. A point

of order, a point of relevance. I

I simply ask for a guarantee in

legislation if that's - if the

Treasurer could say Treasurer could say that?

SPEAKER: The acting PM will

respond in a directly relevant

manner to the question. Mr

Speaker, we have been through a comprehensive

comprehensive process of consultation

consultation on this

legislation and there are some

that are unhappy about it

because the truth is they don't

want to pay any tax. They want

to mine the minerals - SPEAKER:

Those on my left will come to

order. Acting PM has the

call. They want to mine the

mineral which is owned 100% by

Australians, which could only

be dug up once, which has gone

to record prices and they don't

want the Australian people to

get a fair return. The Greens

got their first piece of legislation through the

parliament, a bill removing the

power of a Federal minister to

veto laws passed in the ACT or

the NT. This question is that

this bill be read a second

time. I call the member for

Melbourne. Democracy is not

fixed and set. There is no

blueprint which we have to

follow. Democracy evolves in

the meaning that is given to

democracy changes over time. What doesn't change is the core

value at the centre of

democracy and that core value

can be summarised in this way.

The people will decide how and

by whom they are governed. I

can repeat that. The people will

will decide how and by whom

they are governed. In other

words, the people will have,

and enjoy, a right to self

government. That is what this

bill is about. It is about giving real giving real self-government to

the people of the ACT and the

people of the NT. It is about

removing the power of a removing

minister to tram Pell on the democratic

democratic rights of citizens

of the ACT and the NT. It is

about taking the next step of

the evolution of our the evolution of our democracy

in Australia. I am very proud

to be moving this bill which is

an initiative of the Australian

Greens, to give the citizens of

the ACT an the NT equal constitutional rights. If it

passes today it will be the

first bill initiated by the

Australian Greens to pass this

parliament. I want to, in

particular, pay tribute to the

leadership of Senator Bob Brown

in his long-standing campaign

and leading of the parliamentary process on

territories rights. I hope all parliamentarians will get

behind this bill which is

already passed the Senate in an

amended form. These are just three excerpts from the report

of the Senate inquiry into this

bill. Submission after

submission, after submission to

the Senate inquiry spoke about

how the current way of

operating is outdated and

against the interests of

democracy. Given this, it is

difficult to see why this bill

has caused so much

consternation from groups in

the community. It is

essentially, it is the

principle of democracy here. I

suspect this concern stems from

some inaccurate and I believe,

at times, mischievous reporting

in the media about what in the media about what this

bill is actually about. We have

also had the comments from

those opposite today. Let me

outline what this bill is and

what it is not. This is not a

bill about euthanasia. It is

not a bill about same sex

marriage. It is not a bill that grants the territories state

hood. This bill continues a

long history of granting

citizens of the ACT political

rights. This bill ends the

ability of the Federal

executive government to arbitrarily and without

oversight or input override the

legislation of a self governing

territory. This bill is about

equity, this bill is about

equality, this bill is about democracy. It does not change

the ability of the Federal

Parliament to legislate to

override legislation. This in

itself may not be ideal to some,

some, I accept the fact that

the ACT is a territory and, as

such, is subject to the

relevant section of the

constitution. However, this is

a far superior process to that

which current exists. Motives

of Senator Bob Brown and the

Greens are unclear. I agree

with the commentary by my

colleague and Senator

Humphries, something doesn't

sit right with Senator Bob

Brown being the champion of the

second tier of Government in

this country. I remember

growing up and watching Bob

Brown in the 1980s campaigning

against the Tasmania Government Brown being

who were trying to build a dam.

Dr Brown, as he was known then,

argued that the conflict over

the dam being built in Tasmania should be resolved by the should

Federal Government. He wanted

the then Federal Government to

interfere and intervene in the

affairs of the self governing Tasmania. Where was Senator

Brown's champion views of the

rights of the Territory or

State Government's back

then. There is controversy

about the breach of the

marriage act 1961 and the reach

of the 2004 amendments to of the 2004 amendments to the

marriage act which were

introduced by the Howard

Government. I might add those

amendments in 20 on 04 were

supported by the Labor

Party. These a mentdments

introduced s.88 EA into the

marriage act which prohibited

same sex marriage. It is to

make it perfectly clear that an

inconsistency between a

Territory law a in relation to

marriage and the marriage act

will result in the marriage act

prevailing. The amendment is

run contrary to the spirit of

the bill. It gives recognition

to the fact that in the ACT and

in the NT we have mature

debating chambers that are able

to govern the people who have

elected them for this

parliament to determine in advance

advance what those chambers may

or may not legislate about

reflects the kind of thing reflects the kind of thing that

in fact this bill is seeking to

address. This bill is seeking to

to restore the position that

exists under the constitution.

There will be the capacity for

this parliament in the bill, as

unamended, for this parliament

to pass a law if it considers

that any Territory as many bli

has done something that it

should not have. That p