Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to raise two issues in tonight's grievance debate. The first is the announcement that we had from the local government minister today about the no case in the question in our referendum on whether the federal government is able to apply terms and conditions when giving grants to local governments. He said that the no case will receive one-twentieth of the public funding for the yes case. The government is giving $10 million to the yes case, but it is only giving $500,000 to the no case. This is on top of already $10 million of public funding, which the Local Government Association is giving. What is of great concern are the words of the government's Attorney-General which he used in parliament immediately before the question on the Constitution was put to a vote. I quote:

What the government has committed to—and this is set out in the budget papers—is $10 million to fund a neutral, non-partisan civics education campaign. That campaign will provide the community with information about the Constitution and the process for considering any change in the roles of the Commonwealth, the states and local government, and about the terms of the proposed alteration.

This is the punch line:

This education campaign will not advocate either a yes vote or a no vote but will help ensure electors are aware of the issue and in a position to make an informed vote …

I put it to you that the only interpretation than anyone can get from those words of the Attorney-General is that Commonwealth funding on this referendum question would be neutral. It would at least give both sides of the argument equal public funding. Yet, today, we hear that the no case will get one-twentieth. This is an abuse of our Constitution. It is an affront to our democratic process. It is just another example of the fact that you cannot trust a word that this government says. They say one thing and then they go and do another. The excuse given was that it was proportional as to how the vote went in the House. Many people actually abstained from that vote—I was one of them—on the understanding that there would have been equal funding for both cases. We now know that that was simply not true. The other thing about a so-called proportional vote is that the Senate is yet to vote on this. What happens if the Senate splits 50-50. How can that be reconciled with one-twentieth of the funding going for the no case.

The other issue concerns what was actually voted on in the House. The vote in the House was for the referendum question to be put. Even though a lot of people on the coalition side were not in favour of the question, they were in favour of the question being put. That is quite a logical position to have in our democracy. We understand there was a call for this question to be put, so you could argue that the referendum should be held, but you are quite entitled to argue the no case. The question put to the House was not about those who were for the yes case and those who were for the no case; it was one of whether you are in favour of the question being put. This shows complete disrespect for our constitutional processes. To fund the no case with one-twentieth of the funds for the yes case shows disrespect for our democracy. It is something you would expect from a tin pot government in a tin pot country and it is an absolute—

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Point of order. I find that term offensive and I ask that it be withdrawn.

Deborah O'Neill (Robertson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Hughes would assist the Federation Chamber if he were to withdraw the reference—

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

By way of clarification it was 'tin pot government'.

Deborah O'Neill (Robertson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We do not want clarification. You would assist the chamber if you withdrew that comment.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw. It really reflects very poorly on this government that they have done this double-cross of the people of Australia on this constitutional issue. There is a strong no case and, yes, there is also a yes case. Both cases should be funded equally. I am very pleased that the Leader of the Opposition has written to the government and asked them to reverse that decision and make sure that both the yes and no cases are equally funded.

The other issue I would like to raise tonight is the extreme difficulty that our Australian retail sector is experiencing at the moment, especially our small and medium sized retailers. Many people I speak to are telling me that the trading conditions they are experiencing are the worst they have ever experienced in their lifetime. They are being squeezed by a lack of consumer confidence, increasing costs and increasing foreign competition from online sales. When it comes to falls in consumer confidence, why wouldn't we see falls?

We have a dysfunctional and divided government that is tearing itself apart. It is obsessed with internal squabbles rather than getting on with the job of governing the country.

We have also seen consumer confidence being hit by the longest election campaign in the nation's history. It is evidenced that when a federal election is called, it has an adverse effect on consumer spending and consumer confidence. Tragically, for the Prime Minister to have this long election campaign, knowing that there will be that extended effect on consumer spending and consumer confidence, is just another example of putting her interests ahead of that of the nation. There is also the fall in consumer confidence as a result of the carbon tax, which is making everyone's electricity rise in price. Let us not forget that in two weeks the carbon tax goes up. Of course retailers are being squeezed from increasing costs. They are having to pay higher charges themselves on their electricity bills. Every retailer requires good lighting for their store and they are now seeing that cost go up. Retailers often require their stores to be air-conditioned or heated in the winter. They are seeing those costs escalate and go through the roof.

On the distribution of goods and making deliveries, should this government be re-elected it plans to put their carbon tax onto diesel fuel, which will see the cost of diesel increase by 7c per litre, increasing the price of moving every good around our nation. One of the greatest cost increases that our small- and medium-sized retailers face is their retail rents, which keep going up. An analysis of retail rents in Australia compared to the rest of the world in terms of occupancy costs—that is, the amount of rent expressed as a percentage of the retailer's sales—found that Australia has the highest occupancy costs in the world for small- and medium-sized retailers. The reason for that is we have made some very bad policy decisions in this country in years gone by. We have decided that retail shopping centres should be protected from competition. We have decided that retail shopping centres can actually use the argument that a new competitor entering the market will harm them and therefore the competitor should be stopped. We have seen some disgraceful decisions.

In my electorate, there was the notorious Orange Grove affair. We had a fully functioning shopping centre that was well patronised by the local consumers. There were ample shops that employed over 200 people in an area of Sydney with high unemployment. We saw the Labor government of New South Wales, headed by former Premier Carr, current Senator Car, close that shopping centre down because he did not want competition with other areas. That was a tragic and mistaken decision. We need to have a close look at our retail sector. We cannot continue with these protections from competition, especially when retailers today are facing competition from online retailers, who have the advantage of being able to ship goods to Australia with lower costs and without any sales tax.

Laura Smyth (La Trobe, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What an extraordinary contribution to follow. Apparently, not only are we responsible for everything on our own agenda; we are responsible when the member for Hughes does not turn up to vote. That old turning-up-to-vote chestnut on a Constitutional matter probably would have helped your cause and we may have needed fewer contributions to a grievance debate. I tend not to take the contributions from the member for Hughes particularly seriously, and I will just get on with my own. This grievance debate is really quite a curious instrument of the House. It sounds a bit archaic, which is perhaps fitting in the context of the matters that I am about to raise as grievances in a report to the House. Obviously, all of us here come to this place with views that reflect our experiences, our outlook on life and our philosophical position on important issues. Needless to say, often those world views differ quite substantially. It is an unusual type of person who comes to parliament with a desire to stop the discussion and debate of ideas in the broader community. So this debate is an appropriate place for me to raise a grievance about the actions of conservative governments right around the country which seek to limit the opportunity for elected representatives to speak with their communities and which seek to limit the opportunity for organisations to criticise government.

Over the weekend, in my home state of Victoria, two of my colleagues—one state and one candidate for federal office—were out in their local community speaking to residents about the whole range of local, state and federal issues that inevitably, and rightly, are raised with all of us when we go out to street stalls and street corner meetings or are door-knocking or holding community events. This time, however, those particular colleagues were prevented by security guards from entering a Collingwood high-rise where they had intended to speak to local electors. It has been reported that the security guards were acting on the advice of the Office of Housing from the state Department of Human Services.

I would say that this was quite an extraordinary situation, were it not for the fact that the same kinds of restrictions seem to be being applied in a slightly different context by other conservative governments around this country. The guidelines in question that restricted the movement and the capacity of my colleagues to go and speak to public housing tenants were put in place by the Baillieu-Napthine government in relation to certain types of public housing. One can only conclude that this is all about trying to shut down debate, discussion and community information. It is very much to be regretted, and I would call on Victorian opposition members in this place to encourage their state colleagues and the Victorian Minister for Housing to reverse this decision. It is a very bad precedent. It stymies public discussion and it is an incredibly petty political measure.

So what is it that conservatives do not want Labor people to talk about with public housing tenants—and, indeed, anyone else? Could it be the fact that our government has directly contributed to the construction of one in every 20 new homes since coming to office through measures such as a $6 billion investment in social housing, which is delivering over 21,000 social housing homes right across the nation? Could it be the $4.5 billion National Rental Affordability Scheme, which provides incentive payments to the private sector to build 50,000 affordable rental homes? Could it be the fact that we are making an unprecedented investment of more than $20 billion to address housing supply and affordability issues?

Perhaps they would rather that we did not mention that the federal coalition ripped $3.1 billion out of the housing budget and actually voted against the building of 20,000 new homes the last time they had a chance to support affordable housing. Perhaps it is the fact that this government provides over $3 billion annually in Commonwealth rent assistance, which assists over 1.1 million Australians to pay their rent. All of these are things that, presumably, could have been spoken about by representatives going to visit residents in their community and talk to them about public policy issues and the whole range of other issues that constituents rightly raise with us as representatives and prospective representatives.

Alternatively, I guess they might not want us to talk about the 37,000 people who are waiting for housing in Victoria, or perhaps they do not want us to have the conversation about the Victorian government having provided no new funding for building new housing since coming to office in 2010. Perhaps it is that they do not want us to talk about the Victorian government's failure to rule out selling off public housing. Perhaps it is that they do not want us to talk about threatened increases to rents and limitations to the time that people can stay in public housing in Victoria or the fact that the Victorian government has cut frontline staff who support some of the most vulnerable people in our community. Indeed, the Victorian government has slashed funding to the Social Housing Advocacy and Support Program by around $2.8 million. All of these things, I imagine, would have been slightly uncomfortable to have raised, amongst the range of other things that those representatives could have spoken about.

But, ultimately, I guess it is not all that surprising based on previous forms. Many would remember that a comparable approach was taken by the Howard government in relation to the gagging of community service providers.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Shameful!

Laura Smyth (La Trobe, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Indeed, Member for Moreton. It was indeed shameful—and you would know only too well that this is being replicated in Queensland. Members might recall that confidentiality clauses were included in many of the purchaser-provider contracts that were drawn up between the Howard government and not-for-profit service providers.

Those clauses carried with them a requirement that the organisation in question could not make public comment about their service or program without first obtaining the approval of the relevant department or minister, so I imagine in many instances critical comments were only too willingly received by the relevant department or a minister. The clauses in question were well understood in the not-for-profit sector as a mechanism—a very crude mechanism—by which the Howard government could prevent or reduce their capacity to advocate for groups to whom they provided services. They were also well understood to be a mechanism for reducing criticism of the Howard government as a whole and its policies.

I am very pleased to say that since 2008 it has been government policy not to include gag clauses in Commonwealth agreements in order to remove any restrictions on the not-for-profit sector from engaging in policy and debate. But, of course, what was old is new again in Queensland. The Howard government approach to gag clauses is being used by the Newman government in Queensland and last year a spokesperson for the Queensland health minister confirmed that in funding agreements with some community service organisations the Queensland government had introduced conditions that would restrict those organisations from advocating for state or federal legislative change. Those conditions reportedly also stipulate that the organisations must not include on their website links to other organisations that advocate for state or federal legislative change.

At this stage I gather that the conditions have been confined to those organisations which receive a majority of their funding from the Queensland government. But to complete the set, we also have the Newman government refusing to give permission to the federal education minister to visit a state school last week.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At Nyanda State High School.

Laura Smyth (La Trobe, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Truly extraordinary stuff, member for Moreton. So, for an archaic grievance debate we have quite the archaic set of circumstances presented by conservative governments around the country. Not so many weeks ago they were all very loud on the topic of free speech—very loud indeed. But how things change. What was old has become new again and I do not doubt that precisely the same attitude would be revealed very early under a coalition government were they to be elected.

I am speaking today about concerns that I have in relation to my own state government in Victoria, concerns in relation to the Queensland government and concerns relating to conservative governments right around Australia. They are the stories about housing and what this government has done and is doing in relation to housing, and the apparent lack of housing policy at a state level, that obviously people in conservative parties around the country do not want to be discussed within community settings or do not want to be discussed by not-for-profit organisations.

It is the same with our policies on education. They do not want us to talk to schools; they do not want us to talk to parents; they do not want us out there in the community speaking to people about progressive, future-looking policies that are in the best interests of this nation. And rather than rebut them, rather than debate them on their merits, they scurry away and deny people the opportunity to debate. On that note, I must put on the record that I look forward to the opportunity to have a debate with the representative of the Liberal Party who is contesting the electorate of La Trobe. I am yet to have the opportunity to have that debate and it is regrettable.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! In accordance with standing order 192B the debate is interrupted. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

Federation Chamber adjourned at 21:54