Friday, 4 April 2014

Tanya Plibersek MP, interview with ABC 720 Perth

Transcript of ABC 720 Perth radio interview Drive with John McGlue

coats arms
The Hon Tanya Plibersek MP
Deputy Leader of the Opposition
Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs and International Development
Transcript of ABC 720 Perth radio interview
Drive with John McGlue
2 APRIL 2014
PERTH
E&OE
Subjects: Penalty rates
John McGlue: Just three days now until the all-important Senate election re-run here in Western Australia. The major parties are pushing as hard as you’ve ever seen to get your vote in the Senate. All the big guns are over here pushing whatever issue they believe is going to swing your vote on the weekend. My next guest on Drive believes that a potential attack on penalty rates by the Abbott Government is something that should resonate with West Australians. She’s the Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, Tanya Plibersek, welcome to Drive.
Tanya Plibersek: Thank you, John.
McGlue: The Labor Party’s making a big play of this penalty rate issue, what hard evidence do you have that penalty rates are about to change?
Plibersek: Well, there’s the leaked terms of reference to the Productivity Commission inquiry into industrial relations which certainly include looking at penalty rates. We’ve heard just today from the West Australian Chamber of Commerce and we know that a very prominent business man here in West Australia who’s on the Prime Minister’s Business Advisory Council has also been in the media saying that penalty rates should be cut. So, the fact that the Government’s actually looking at cutting penalty rates and we’ve got this strong call from businesses in the West, I think would certainly be a call for concern for West Australians who rely on penalty rates to make ends meet.
McGlue: The Chamber of Commerce and Industry has suggested what it calls a sensible loading, one and a half times, what do you make of that? Is that something that you think is sensible?
Plibersek: Well, I think we need to be sensible at all times in industrial relations, of course. I’m not going to speculate about one particular rate, but I would say this: when you’re talking about workers who are relying on penalty rates to make ends meet, they’re not the high paid workers. They’re cleaners, they’re shop assistants, they’re people who work in aged care, they’re prison officers, they’re nurses, they’re paramedics. They’re the people who are, you know, cleaning the schools after kids have gone home until 10 o’clock at night. And a lot of these workers get up to a third of their take-home pay from penalty rates. So you take a cleaner, for example, that cleaner might be earning just over $17 without penalty rates, and say around, just over $22 with penalty rates. So, it’s all very well for people on very high incomes to be talking about the impost of penalty rates, but for many of these people it really is the difference between making the family budget meet at the end of the week.
McGlue: You talk about the difficulties for employees needing penalty rates, needing the income that comes from that to make ends meet. What about employers? By Labor’s own figures, that’s up to 30 per cent of the wage bill, can you understand how they feel, the employers?
Plibersek: Yes, I do and I think that it is really important we have a cooperative relationship between employers and employees. But I’d say again, that the people that we’re talking about are already some of the lowest paid workers in our community. If you’re talking about a cleaner who might be on $17 getting penalty rates taking them to $22, you’re not talking about highflyers. So yes, I have every openness to arguments that employers are making. What I’m saying is that if you’re taking our lowest paid workers, people who look after aging Australians in nursing homes and saying we want to take a third of their take-home pay away then that’s a very difficult thing for that person and that family.
McGlue: Do you know what it’s like to be an employer? Do you know what it feels like to pay wages, to be responsible for somebody’s wellbeing and for their financial situation? To lie awake in bed at night and wonder whether you’re going to make payroll? Have you ever been in that position? Have you ever employed anybody and run a balance sheet?
Plibersek: Yes I do. I have employed people and worked in small businesses before I went into Parliament. But I’m not saying that I’m an expert in this by any means. I think that there are millions of small business owners in Australia who do experience a great deal of stress every day and one of those issues is making ends meet, a lot of other issues around red tape and what it takes to- just in hours worked to run a small business are things that we can discuss and be open to and we’re already having those discussions with small business.
McGlue: But Tanya Plibersek, employing people isn’t a gaol sentence, it’s utterly discretionary. And in recent years in Australia we’ve seen a withdrawal of capital from productive investment. The banks will tell you that credit growth is growing modestly but deposit growth and term deposit growth are growing at considerably higher rates and essentially that’s capital gone on strike and if Labor is so determined to hold onto these high cost elements like penalty rates, how do you convince capital, how do you convince prospective employers to invest in new businesses and to employ the people who you, the Labor Party, professes to represent? How do you do that?
Plibersek: Well, about 3 per cent of Australian businesses employ more than 20 people. So if you’re talking about a drop in business investment and in fact there was a drop off the cliff in business investment at the beginning of this year. I don’t know that you can make a direct link between a worker being paid $22 an hour instead of $17 an hour and a drop in capital investment from businesses.
McGlue: But it’s all around the perception of the capital of businesses around the conditions in which they will operate, and the conditions and the backdrop against which they will invest. If they don’t think that business conditions are decent, they’ll hold back the capital which is what’s happening. That’s why businesses are so concerned about lobbying for changes on penalty rates.
Plibersek: Yeah and do you know what? I think that there is a real problem with business confidence in Australia and part of that is having a government that is telling business and the community all the time that there are big cuts coming in the budget, that our economy is in bad shape, when in fact we’ve had some of the strongest growth of any nation on earth. We’ve had some of the lowest debt and lowest deficits of any nation on earth. When we’ve continued to have 23 years of continuous growth in this country, by any measure our economy internationally is a very strong one and it would be terrific to have a government that wasn’t talking down our economy all the time.
McGlue: Well one of the concerns they’ve got of course is the fact is they’ve inherited such a big mountain of debt and they have also –
Plibersek: That is just nonsense.
McGlue: And they have also inherited a series of a budgetary position, a fiscal position which is at best parlous. And all of that happened under Labor.
Plibersek: That is just nonsense. If you look at Australian debt and Australian deficit compared to nations around the world you will see Australia’s position is better than most. It’s certainly better than the US its better than the UK, it’s better than Europe, it’s better than Japan, it’s better than most economies in the world. And what we’ve seen in the mid-year economic forecast from Joe Hockey is a cooking of the books. He has changed parameters in the budget so that debt looks bigger. He’s made a decision to make the budget look worse than it is. He’s got 68 billion dollars’ worth of parameter changes and that includes also an 8 billion dollar, over 8 billion dollars just given to the Reserve Bank. Money that the Reserve Bank doesn’t need, didn’t ask for, that’s just added to our deficit. Why? Because he wants to make the budget look as bad as possible so he can have the excuse he wants to cut programs, like cut education, cut health and cut all the programs that Australians rely on to live in a civilised community.
McGlue: Thanks for your time today. Thank you for coming in.
Plibersek: Thank you.
- See more at: http://tanyaplibersek.com/2014/04/861/#sthash.D95UavlP.dpuf


coats arms


The Hon Tanya Plibersek MP
Deputy Leader of the Opposition
Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs and International Development

Transcript of ABC 720 Perth radio interview
Drive with John McGlue

2 APRIL 2014

PERTH
E&OE
Subjects: Penalty rates

John McGlue: Just three days now until the all-important Senate election re-run here in Western Australia. The major parties are pushing as hard as you’ve ever seen to get your vote in the Senate. All the big guns are over here pushing whatever issue they believe is going to swing your vote on the weekend. My next guest on Drive believes that a potential attack on penalty rates by the Abbott Government is something that should resonate with West Australians. She’s the Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, Tanya Plibersek, welcome to Drive.
Tanya Plibersek: Thank you, John.
McGlue: The Labor Party’s making a big play of this penalty rate issue, what hard evidence do you have that penalty rates are about to change?
Plibersek: Well, there’s the leaked terms of reference to the Productivity Commission inquiry into industrial relations which certainly include looking at penalty rates. We’ve heard just today from the West Australian Chamber of Commerce and we know that a very prominent business man here in West Australia who’s on the Prime Minister’s Business Advisory Council has also been in the media saying that penalty rates should be cut. So, the fact that the Government’s actually looking at cutting penalty rates and we’ve got this strong call from businesses in the West, I think would certainly be a call for concern for West Australians who rely on penalty rates to make ends meet.
McGlue: The Chamber of Commerce and Industry has suggested what it calls a sensible loading, one and a half times, what do you make of that? Is that something that you think is sensible?
Plibersek: Well, I think we need to be sensible at all times in industrial relations, of course. I’m not going to speculate about one particular rate, but I would say this: when you’re talking about workers who are relying on penalty rates to make ends meet, they’re not the high paid workers. They’re cleaners, they’re shop assistants, they’re people who work in aged care, they’re prison officers, they’re nurses, they’re paramedics. They’re the people who are, you know, cleaning the schools after kids have gone home until 10 o’clock at night. And a lot of these workers get up to a third of their take-home pay from penalty rates. So you take a cleaner, for example, that cleaner might be earning just over $17 without penalty rates, and say around, just over $22 with penalty rates. So, it’s all very well for people on very high incomes to be talking about the impost of penalty rates, but for many of these people it really is the difference between making the family budget meet at the end of the week.
McGlue: You talk about the difficulties for employees needing penalty rates, needing the income that comes from that to make ends meet. What about employers? By Labor’s own figures, that’s up to 30 per cent of the wage bill, can you understand how they feel, the employers?
Plibersek: Yes, I do and I think that it is really important we have a cooperative relationship between employers and employees. But I’d say again, that the people that we’re talking about are already some of the lowest paid workers in our community. If you’re talking about a cleaner who might be on $17 getting penalty rates taking them to $22, you’re not talking about highflyers. So yes, I have every openness to arguments that employers are making. What I’m saying is that if you’re taking our lowest paid workers, people who look after aging Australians in nursing homes and saying we want to take a third of their take-home pay away then that’s a very difficult thing for that person and that family.
McGlue: Do you know what it’s like to be an employer? Do you know what it feels like to pay wages, to be responsible for somebody’s wellbeing and for their financial situation? To lie awake in bed at night and wonder whether you’re going to make payroll? Have you ever been in that position? Have you ever employed anybody and run a balance sheet?
Plibersek: Yes I do. I have employed people and worked in small businesses before I went into Parliament. But I’m not saying that I’m an expert in this by any means. I think that there are millions of small business owners in Australia who do experience a great deal of stress every day and one of those issues is making ends meet, a lot of other issues around red tape and what it takes to- just in hours worked to run a small business are things that we can discuss and be open to and we’re already having those discussions with small business.
McGlue: But Tanya Plibersek, employing people isn’t a gaol sentence, it’s utterly discretionary. And in recent years in Australia we’ve seen a withdrawal of capital from productive investment. The banks will tell you that credit growth is growing modestly but deposit growth and term deposit growth are growing at considerably higher rates and essentially that’s capital gone on strike and if Labor is so determined to hold onto these high cost elements like penalty rates, how do you convince capital, how do you convince prospective employers to invest in new businesses and to employ the people who you, the Labor Party, professes to represent? How do you do that?
Plibersek: Well, about 3 per cent of Australian businesses employ more than 20 people. So if you’re talking about a drop in business investment and in fact there was a drop off the cliff in business investment at the beginning of this year. I don’t know that you can make a direct link between a worker being paid $22 an hour instead of $17 an hour and a drop in capital investment from businesses.
McGlue: But it’s all around the perception of the capital of businesses around the conditions in which they will operate, and the conditions and the backdrop against which they will invest. If they don’t think that business conditions are decent, they’ll hold back the capital which is what’s happening. That’s why businesses are so concerned about lobbying for changes on penalty rates.
Plibersek: Yeah and do you know what? I think that there is a real problem with business confidence in Australia and part of that is having a government that is telling business and the community all the time that there are big cuts coming in the budget, that our economy is in bad shape, when in fact we’ve had some of the strongest growth of any nation on earth. We’ve had some of the lowest debt and lowest deficits of any nation on earth. When we’ve continued to have 23 years of continuous growth in this country, by any measure our economy internationally is a very strong one and it would be terrific to have a government that wasn’t talking down our economy all the time.
McGlue: Well one of the concerns they’ve got of course is the fact is they’ve inherited such a big mountain of debt and they have also –
Plibersek: That is just nonsense.
McGlue: And they have also inherited a series of a budgetary position, a fiscal position which is at best parlous. And all of that happened under Labor.
Plibersek: That is just nonsense. If you look at Australian debt and Australian deficit compared to nations around the world you will see Australia’s position is better than most. It’s certainly better than the US its better than the UK, it’s better than Europe, it’s better than Japan, it’s better than most economies in the world. And what we’ve seen in the mid-year economic forecast from Joe Hockey is a cooking of the books. He has changed parameters in the budget so that debt looks bigger. He’s made a decision to make the budget look worse than it is. He’s got 68 billion dollars’ worth of parameter changes and that includes also an 8 billion dollar, over 8 billion dollars just given to the Reserve Bank. Money that the Reserve Bank doesn’t need, didn’t ask for, that’s just added to our deficit. Why? Because he wants to make the budget look as bad as possible so he can have the excuse he wants to cut programs, like cut education, cut health and cut all the programs that Australians rely on to live in a civilised community.
McGlue: Thanks for your time today. Thank you for coming in.
Plibersek: Thank you.



Transcript of ABC 720 Perth radio interview Drive with John McGlue

coats arms
The Hon Tanya Plibersek MP
Deputy Leader of the Opposition
Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs and International Development
Transcript of ABC 720 Perth radio interview
Drive with John McGlue
2 APRIL 2014
PERTH
E&OE
Subjects: Penalty rates
John McGlue: Just three days now until the all-important Senate election re-run here in Western Australia. The major parties are pushing as hard as you’ve ever seen to get your vote in the Senate. All the big guns are over here pushing whatever issue they believe is going to swing your vote on the weekend. My next guest on Drive believes that a potential attack on penalty rates by the Abbott Government is something that should resonate with West Australians. She’s the Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, Tanya Plibersek, welcome to Drive.
Tanya Plibersek: Thank you, John.
McGlue: The Labor Party’s making a big play of this penalty rate issue, what hard evidence do you have that penalty rates are about to change?
Plibersek: Well, there’s the leaked terms of reference to the Productivity Commission inquiry into industrial relations which certainly include looking at penalty rates. We’ve heard just today from the West Australian Chamber of Commerce and we know that a very prominent business man here in West Australia who’s on the Prime Minister’s Business Advisory Council has also been in the media saying that penalty rates should be cut. So, the fact that the Government’s actually looking at cutting penalty rates and we’ve got this strong call from businesses in the West, I think would certainly be a call for concern for West Australians who rely on penalty rates to make ends meet.
McGlue: The Chamber of Commerce and Industry has suggested what it calls a sensible loading, one and a half times, what do you make of that? Is that something that you think is sensible?
Plibersek: Well, I think we need to be sensible at all times in industrial relations, of course. I’m not going to speculate about one particular rate, but I would say this: when you’re talking about workers who are relying on penalty rates to make ends meet, they’re not the high paid workers. They’re cleaners, they’re shop assistants, they’re people who work in aged care, they’re prison officers, they’re nurses, they’re paramedics. They’re the people who are, you know, cleaning the schools after kids have gone home until 10 o’clock at night. And a lot of these workers get up to a third of their take-home pay from penalty rates. So you take a cleaner, for example, that cleaner might be earning just over $17 without penalty rates, and say around, just over $22 with penalty rates. So, it’s all very well for people on very high incomes to be talking about the impost of penalty rates, but for many of these people it really is the difference between making the family budget meet at the end of the week.
McGlue: You talk about the difficulties for employees needing penalty rates, needing the income that comes from that to make ends meet. What about employers? By Labor’s own figures, that’s up to 30 per cent of the wage bill, can you understand how they feel, the employers?
Plibersek: Yes, I do and I think that it is really important we have a cooperative relationship between employers and employees. But I’d say again, that the people that we’re talking about are already some of the lowest paid workers in our community. If you’re talking about a cleaner who might be on $17 getting penalty rates taking them to $22, you’re not talking about highflyers. So yes, I have every openness to arguments that employers are making. What I’m saying is that if you’re taking our lowest paid workers, people who look after aging Australians in nursing homes and saying we want to take a third of their take-home pay away then that’s a very difficult thing for that person and that family.
McGlue: Do you know what it’s like to be an employer? Do you know what it feels like to pay wages, to be responsible for somebody’s wellbeing and for their financial situation? To lie awake in bed at night and wonder whether you’re going to make payroll? Have you ever been in that position? Have you ever employed anybody and run a balance sheet?
Plibersek: Yes I do. I have employed people and worked in small businesses before I went into Parliament. But I’m not saying that I’m an expert in this by any means. I think that there are millions of small business owners in Australia who do experience a great deal of stress every day and one of those issues is making ends meet, a lot of other issues around red tape and what it takes to- just in hours worked to run a small business are things that we can discuss and be open to and we’re already having those discussions with small business.
McGlue: But Tanya Plibersek, employing people isn’t a gaol sentence, it’s utterly discretionary. And in recent years in Australia we’ve seen a withdrawal of capital from productive investment. The banks will tell you that credit growth is growing modestly but deposit growth and term deposit growth are growing at considerably higher rates and essentially that’s capital gone on strike and if Labor is so determined to hold onto these high cost elements like penalty rates, how do you convince capital, how do you convince prospective employers to invest in new businesses and to employ the people who you, the Labor Party, professes to represent? How do you do that?
Plibersek: Well, about 3 per cent of Australian businesses employ more than 20 people. So if you’re talking about a drop in business investment and in fact there was a drop off the cliff in business investment at the beginning of this year. I don’t know that you can make a direct link between a worker being paid $22 an hour instead of $17 an hour and a drop in capital investment from businesses.
McGlue: But it’s all around the perception of the capital of businesses around the conditions in which they will operate, and the conditions and the backdrop against which they will invest. If they don’t think that business conditions are decent, they’ll hold back the capital which is what’s happening. That’s why businesses are so concerned about lobbying for changes on penalty rates.
Plibersek: Yeah and do you know what? I think that there is a real problem with business confidence in Australia and part of that is having a government that is telling business and the community all the time that there are big cuts coming in the budget, that our economy is in bad shape, when in fact we’ve had some of the strongest growth of any nation on earth. We’ve had some of the lowest debt and lowest deficits of any nation on earth. When we’ve continued to have 23 years of continuous growth in this country, by any measure our economy internationally is a very strong one and it would be terrific to have a government that wasn’t talking down our economy all the time.
McGlue: Well one of the concerns they’ve got of course is the fact is they’ve inherited such a big mountain of debt and they have also –
Plibersek: That is just nonsense.
McGlue: And they have also inherited a series of a budgetary position, a fiscal position which is at best parlous. And all of that happened under Labor.
Plibersek: That is just nonsense. If you look at Australian debt and Australian deficit compared to nations around the world you will see Australia’s position is better than most. It’s certainly better than the US its better than the UK, it’s better than Europe, it’s better than Japan, it’s better than most economies in the world. And what we’ve seen in the mid-year economic forecast from Joe Hockey is a cooking of the books. He has changed parameters in the budget so that debt looks bigger. He’s made a decision to make the budget look worse than it is. He’s got 68 billion dollars’ worth of parameter changes and that includes also an 8 billion dollar, over 8 billion dollars just given to the Reserve Bank. Money that the Reserve Bank doesn’t need, didn’t ask for, that’s just added to our deficit. Why? Because he wants to make the budget look as bad as possible so he can have the excuse he wants to cut programs, like cut education, cut health and cut all the programs that Australians rely on to live in a civilised community.
McGlue: Thanks for your time today. Thank you for coming in.
Plibersek: Thank you.
- See more at: http://tanyaplibersek.com/2014/04/861/#sthash.D95UavlP.dpuf

‘Paying down debt’ becomes ‘funding LNP promises’

Media Release


Shadow Treasurer Curtis Pitt says recent comments on asset sales by the Premier and the Treasurer expose the hypocrisy of Newman LNP Government plans for asset sales.
“It now seems that rather than pay down debt, any asset sales are going to fund LNP promises for the next election campaign,” Mr Pitt said.
“For the past two years Treasurer Tim Nicholls has been adamant that asset sales are needed to pay down debt.
“That was supposedly the urgent, number-one priority. The LNP cannot have it both ways — it is either selling assets to pay off debt or it is selling them to fund election promises.
“Now the Premier says new dams and raising the Wivenhoe Dam’s wall could be funded by asset sales, and last week Tim Nicholls himself came up with a list of uncosted promises to be funded by asset sales.
“Just last week the Treasurer nominated the Townsville Ring Road; upgrades to the Bruce Highway; Gregory Development Road upgrades; and a football stadium in Townsville as just a few projects that could be delivered using the proceeds of asset sales.
“Asset sales have also been raised in connection with funding Brisbane’s new underground bus and rail tunnel that was announced before being accurately costed.
“The LNP’s lack of a coherent plan means more assets will be on the auction block including our entire electricity network and major hospitals.”
Mr Pitt said the LNP started its first term by commissioning the discredited Costello Audit to generate fabricated horror stories about debt to justify asset sales.
“Liberal Party life member Peter Costello said $25 billion in asset sales were needed to regain the state’s AAA credit rating, but now it seems the funds from asset sales will be a magic pudding to foot the bill for more uncosted LNP election commitments,” he said.
“The LNP has sacked up to 20,000 government workers and has slashed frontline services just to find the $4 billion needed to pay for its unfunded 2012 election promises.
“The LNP axe started to fall on jobs and services even though before the election it said it had identified funding sources for its commitments and after also promising government workers their jobs were safe and that it would enhance frontline services.
“Also at the last election the Treasurer said he had a plan to pay down debt without asset sales, not a plan to weaken the State Budget’s operating position into the future by engaging in a mass sell-off of profitable assets to fund new LNP promises.
“It shows the so-called ‘debt crisis’ never existed. State debt has been manageable and under the former government delivered major infrastructure projects like new hospitals that also created thousands of jobs and kept Queensland out of recession in the GFC.
“Mr Nicholls has already struck a deal with federal Treasurer Joe Hockey to sell assets —a deal that would see Queensland lose profitable assets and tax equivalent payments in exchange for the Federal Government funding infrastructure it is obliged to fund anyway.
“Only this Treasurer could put together a deal that results in a lose-lose-lose outcome for Queensland taxpayers.
“Last week in Gladstone the Treasurer was on his lecture tour about asset sales but was told in no uncertain terms to take it steady and to take a long-term view,” he said.
“There is no need for a fire sale of state assets just to satisfy the LNP’s ideological desire to be a do-nothing government and to sell off all government activities and assets to the private sector.”
Mr Pitt said the LNP continued to mislead Queenslanders on state debt.
“For the record, Labor did not rack up or leave $80 billion of debt, nor did Labor ever incur an interest bill of $450,000 per hour,” he said.
“To say otherwise is a blatant deception designed at hiding the increase in debt under the Newman Government of $14.6 billion over two years, or $830,000 per hour — a deception also designed to hide the fact that this Treasurer had no plan for Queensland’s finances or the economy before the 2012 state election,” Mr Pitt said.

Opposition calls for new crackdown on ‘slumlords’

Media Release


Shadow Housing Minister Jo-Ann Miller has introduced a Private Member’s Bill into the Parliament, calling for new laws that will crack down on so-called ‘slumlords’ – landlords that don’t provide an appropriate standard of housing for tenants.
“This Bill is about establishing a minimum standard of housing for residential accommodation across the state,” Mrs Miller said.
“We’ve all seen television stories of fellow Queenslanders living in squalor thanks to the lack of responsibility from landlords, much to the detriment of their health and that of their family.
“This isn’t about making life tough for landlords. In the vast majority of cases, these basic standards of living will already be being met.
“But we can’t let the slumlords out there get away with providing substandard living conditions while pocketing rent, simply because those tenants can’t afford anywhere else.
“By putting in place a minimum standard for rental accommodation for things like sanitation, ventilation and insulation, we can ensure that these standards are enforceable and therefore provide a healthy and safe place for all Queenslanders to live.”
Mrs Miller said even at the lowest end of the rental market where renters are the most vulnerable, landlords should have a duty of care to ensure an adequate standard of living.
“Having access to stable, adequate shelter shouldn’t be an optional extra, it should come standard.
“By providing a clean, safe and structurally sound environment, we can provide the start many families need to improve their standard of living.
“The LNP Government has had a woeful attitude towards housing standards since they’re elected, but I’m asking them to work with Labor and support this Bill in the best interests of vulnerable Queenslanders.”
The Bill will amend the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008. This will allow the Minister to prescribe minimum standards for private rental accommodation, both standard housing and rooming accommodation, by regulation, in relation to matters including, for example, the following—
- sanitation, drainage, cleanliness and repair of premises;
- ventilation and insulation;
- protection from damp and its effects;
- construction, condition, structures, safety and situation of premises;
- the dimensions, cubical extent and height of rooms in the premises;
- privacy and security;
- provision of water supply, storage and sanitary facilities;
- laundry and cooking facilities;
- lighting; and
- freedom from vermin infestation.
The Bill has now been referred to Parliament’s Transport, Housing and Local Government Committee to allow for consultation with stakeholders and the public.

Why I must speak out about climate change - James Hansen

Clive Palmer and Ross Garnaut debate carbon tax ahead of WA Senate election re-run

Extract from ABC News

Updated 3 hours 16 minutes ago

Federal MP Clive Palmer and economist Ross Garnaut have gone head to head in a debate over the carbon tax, with the mining magnate saying it will "definitely" go when the new Senate takes over in July.
The pair debated the issue on Lateline ahead of Saturday's WA Senate election re-run, after the Prime Minister put the carbon tax front and centre as he campaigned in the west this week.
The Senate election will determine how many votes the Coalition will require from a diverse cross-bench of independents, micro parties and the Palmer United Party (PUP) to push legislation through the Upper House.
Professor Garnaut, the man who designed Labor's climate change laws, weighed into the election debate on Tuesday when he said the Abbott Government had been saved a "costly mistake" when the Senate voted down its repeal of the carbon tax.
But Mr Palmer told Lateline that the carbon tax would be repealed when the new Senate is sworn in, irrespective of the vote on Saturday.
Mr Palmer has previously indicated he wanted the repeal legislation to apply retrospectively, something the Government has ruled out.
But he has now indicated that getting rid of the policy is a priority, describing it as "fait accompli".
"As a matter of principle, we favour the repeal of the carbon tax, as does the Government," he said.
"And our party has the balance of power in the Senate right now, even if we're unsuccessful in the election in WA - which we won't be. So the carbon tax is definitely going. It's a fait accompli."

Palmer dismisses latest report from IPCC

Mr Palmer also rejected the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report (IPCC), which singled out the threat of climate change to the Great Barrier Reef and Australia's alpine region.
Lateline presenter Tony Jones: Clive Palmer, can I ask you a very basic question? Do you believe the consensus scientific view set out in the latest IPCC report that climate change impacts due to global warming will have especially serious impacts on Australia?
Clive Palmer:  No, I don't believe that's so. There's been global warming for a long time. I mean, all of Ireland was covered by ice at one time. There were no human inhabitants in Ireland.
That's how the world has been going over millions and billions of years and Ross Garnaut knows that's true, so I think that's part of the natural cycle.
When asked who he would take advice from in the field of climate change, Mr Palmer deflected the issue.
"Well, I can get a group of scientists together, Tony, and pay them whatever I want to and come up with any solution. That's what's been happening all over the world on a whole range of things," he said.
Mr Palmer said scientists should be focusing on the 97 per cent of carbon dioxide that comes from nature.
"It's not logical. If we say it's - 97 per cent comes from nature and we don't even bother examining how we can reduce carbon in nature, just in industry, it's not a proper balance," he said.
"I mean, if we say we want to reduce it by 1 per cent, which I think is the target globally, to do that, why can't we take some from nature, some from industry, or maybe all from nature?"
Mr Garnaut said the IPCC report, which warned of serious threats to the planet's ecosystems, infrastructure and agricultural production, reflects the overwhelming view of scientists from all over the world.
"The academies of science of all of the great countries of science, including Australia, Britain, the United States, China, India, Germany, the Netherlands, France - all are of this view," he said.
"And so if you stand outside that you're really taking a strange position in the world of knowledge."

Market-based system needed to tackle climate change: Garnaut

In his speech to a Perth business function on Tuesday, Professor Garnaut estimated the repeal of the carbon tax would cost the budget $7 billion and said "true Australian conservatives would be barracking" against the repeal.
He told Lateline the $7 billion figure comes from the loss of carbon tax revenue next year, plus the cost of the Coalition's direct action policy.

Coalition direct action policy


  • Keep the 5 per cent emission reduction target
  • Scrap the price on carbon and associated corporations
  • Establish a $3 billion fund to pay businesses for emission reduction projects
  • Create a 15,000 strong Green Army to conduct conservation work

Read more about the policy in our explainer

Photo: AAP

"Elsewhere I've said that looking ahead, beyond the forward estimates, the very minimum loss of budget revenue is $4-5 billion a year," he said.
"But it could be several times that, comparing direct action with the current policies. Now that's a lot of revenue."
Professor Garnaut said climate change will be "deeply disruptive to society and economic activity".
"If we don't put in place market-oriented ways of dealing with it, like the Emissions Trading Scheme ... if we don't have a market-based scheme, we'll end up with trying to address this issue with multiple interventions which will make a mess of our market economy," he said.
"True Australian conservatives want this problem to be dealt with. It will be disruptive of everything we value.
"It will be disruptive of established ways of life in Australia as a whole, but especially in the south-west of WA, from Geraldton to Albany, if we leave it unmitigated.
"If we don't deal with it in a market-oriented way with an emissions trading scheme or some broad-based carbon pricing, the alternative is regulatory intervention, which will make a mess of the market economy."

Wednesday, 2 April 2014

California utility customers start getting ‘Climate Credits’


• Credits will range from $30 to $40, twice a year
• Rebates come from proceeds of state’s cap-and-trade anti-pollution                program
• Consumer, environmental advocates pushed for the credits

SACRAMENTO, California – Customers of Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas and Electric this month will receive the first “Climate Credit” on their electricity bills.
The California Climate Credit will be issued twice a year, in April and October, to Californians who get their electricity from one of the state’s three investor-owned utilities.
The amount will range from approximately $30 to $40 each time, depending on the utility company involved, and will be the same for each household within a particular company’s service territory.
Consumer and environmental advocates urged the California Public Utilities Commission to implement these customer rebates, which represent the bulk of proceeds from pollution permits allocated to the state’s three investor-owned utilities under AB 32, California’s Global Warming Solutions Act.
“We pushed hard for this credit, which protects California households from having to foot the bill even as we make sure electricity rates reflect the cost of pollution in order to encourage cleaner alternatives,” said Ryan Young, legal counsel with The Greenlining Institute’s Environmental Equity program.
“Now, with the cap-and-trade program up and running, California families are about to reap the dividends,” Young added.
He said further, “We wanted to make sure that those who do the right thing and cut their energy use weren’t penalized by receiving a smaller credit, while maximizing the benefit to low-income households.”
“By using this credit to do simple things like replacing power-guzzling light bulbs with energy-saving bulbs, Californians can multiply their savings and help clean our air even more.”

Read more: http://globalnation.inquirer.net/101443/california-utility-customers-start-getting-climate-credits#ixzz2xi2811jz


The Worker

Well Mr. Hunt, if it is so bad as you say "does not work - plain and simple" how come California is doing it?

Extract from  Peter Hannam Environment Editor, The Sydney Morning Herald  February 5, 2014

Environment Minister Greg Hunt said the drop in emissions from the power sector was only ‘‘very slight’’ and was prompted by the renewable energy target and reduced economic activity.
‘‘The carbon tax is not cutting emissions in any meaningful or significant way,’’ Mr Hunt said, adding that it ‘‘does not work – plain and simple’’.



TONY ABBOTT’S HALF BILLION DOLLAR HOSPITAL HIT



Sunday, 30 March 2014


Prime Minister Tony Abbott has been caught breaking another election promise with Health Minister Peter Dutton today confirming $560 million will be cut from hospital funding.

Before the election, Tony Abbott promised no cuts to health and hospitals.  However, analysis of budget documents revealed today show the Liberal Government will spend $560 million less on Australia’s public hospitals over the forward estimates compared to what was committed in the Budget by Labor.

Minister Dutton’s confirmation of this half billion cut in today’s papers is another broken promise from Tony Abbott and will hit elective surgeries and emergency department waiting times.

The cuts include a $277m cut to Victorian hospitals; a $200m cut to NSW hospitals;  a $100m cut in Queensland and a $27m cut to South Australian hospitals.

Liberal Premiers should be standing up to Tony Abbott about these cuts to hospitals in their states.

The Abbott Government is already planning to increase pressure on hospitals through a GP Tax that will see patients putting off doctor visits and costing every Australian more.

These hospital cuts are just the tip of the iceberg -  there are more cuts to come, with the Government refusing to release the Commission of Audit report until after the Western Australian Senate Election.

This is another example of Tony Abbott’s twisted priorities – why is his Government cutting funding to hospitals but happy to give $75,000 to income high earners as part of his unfair and unaffordable Paid Parental Leave Scheme?

The Liberal Government’s priorities are all wrong.