Jamie Briggs MP

Welcome back to the program. With me now Liberal MP, Jamie Briggs, and Labor front bencher, Richard Marles.Gentlemen, let's look at domestic politics. Richard, 200 trucks, the Federal Police tell us, is part of this convoy. Not as big as the organisers had hoped, but still a lot of passion against the government.

 

 

We certainly respect the right of people to make a protest, to have their say. I'm happy to be living in a country where you're able to do that. I think what's important though is that when people have their say, they contribute to what is a rational debate. And, at the moment, one of the problems we've got in the way the Opposition is running the debate in relation to the carbon price, and everything else, is we've got opposition by hysteria.I think Tony Abbott needs to make sure that when he engages with all these movements he does so in a way that seeks to promote rational debate.

 

 

But Richard, this is happening today when we're seeing the steel industry lose 1000 jobs. Obviously, this has been in the works for a while with the dollar so high. But it doesn't help the government, does it, argue the case on the carbon tax?

 

 

 Well, let's take what's going on with BlueScope. BlueScope have made it completely clear that their view of the carbon price is that it has no material impact on their business whatsoever. That's what they say. So, whatever transpires today with BlueScope and whatever announcement ends up being made — and there are obviously difficulties for manufacturing given the price of the dollar — when Tony Abbott inevitably comes out and tries to link this with the carbon price, every Australian needs to understand that is hysterical and BlueScope do not agree with him.
 

 

And BlueScope, Jamie Briggs, actually said that they welcomed the final make-up of the carbon tax. They were certainly not critical of it in any way, shape or form.

 

 

Let's get to the nub of the government's argument. On the one hand, you hear Wayne Swan, Julia Gillard and, occasionally, even Richard Marles argue that they've created so many thousands of jobs, the government's created. Which of course, is not true, governments don't create jobs, the economy does. But on the same time when jobs are lost, major jobs are lost and industry is like this, well, nothing to do with us, don't look here, it's not our policies, it's nothing to do with what we're doing to the economy, it's nothing to do with an extra tax we're making people apply. It's nothing to do with the regulation of the labour market. It's all other factors. It's never our fault. But it is — of course, we'll take the credit when there's — when there is supposedly new jobs created. So, they can't have it both ways. They'll try desperately to have it both ways. Today, they'll say that the fundamentals of the economy are strong at the same time as thousands of workers are losing their job in the manufacturing industry…

 

 

But do you concede that — obviously, the dollar's been something that's been hammering manufacturing for a long — much longer time than a carbon tax that's not even in yet?

 

 

The dollar's part of the factor, no doubt about that. But, of course, government policy influences the general economic conditions in a domestic economy. And there's no doubt that the government's policies are making it harder for business to go about creating jobs and creating prosperity. And we're seeing this now. We're seeing the real effect of government policy starting to occur in the general economy. I feel very sorry for these thousands of workers who today will face terrible announcements, life affecting announcements. And this is the consequence of bad government decisions.

 

 

Does the government want it — does the government want the best of both worlds here? You claim the jobs but won't cop the losses.

 

 

That is not right, and what Jamie's saying is absolutely not right. Jamie and I both agree in the fundamentals of having a market economy, no doubt about that. And, to a degree, that means you let the economy go as it will. But whereas the Liberal Party inevitably say whatever the market does, we'll just watch it and hands off, that has never been our view. And so, during the global economic crisis, we did put in place stimulus which did create jobs and hundreds of thousands of them. And that was government action. We have said that, yes, the fundamentals of our economy are strong, but there is a patchwork economy out there and we need to be thinking about that.

 

 

Apparently…

 

 

 So, in terms of rebalancing our economy, we are putting in place a minerals resource rent tax. Vigorously opposed by the Opposition. And so, we're actually trying to manage  what’s going on at the moment in our economy, so that we can protect jobs in Australia.

 

 

Doesn't this sum up…

 

 

 The Opposition do completely the opposite.

 

 

This sums up the Labor Party though doesn't it?

 

 

Well, let's look at what the business, well, let's look at, let's, we've heard you know, we've analysed what the government's doing, let's look at the Liberal side of things. Big business urging your leadership to undertake IR reform. It's something you've been passionate about. Something Mr Reith and others have been advocating. Is it time for Tony Abbott to grasp that issue, grasp that policy and start putting in some more positive agenda. Not just the negative bashing of the government.

 

 

 Sure. Well, let's go to the fundamentals about what Michael Chaney and others have said today. I mean, Michael Chaney, probably the most respected business leader in this country, and I'd be surprised if Richard disagrees with that assessment, again today, saying that what the government has done has made it harder to employ, has made it more difficult for business to get on and create prosperity in our country, and that they should have a look — an urgent look — at the fundamentals of the changes that they made.

 

 

And the Coalition should…

 

 

Now well, Tony Abbott has said that's what he'll do. Tony Abbott has said that we'll have a policy at the next election which is about solving problems, and that's exactly what is needed right now…

 

 

 Is the work…

 

 

 is…

 

 

Is the work being done now, do you think, because…

 

 

 Oh, no doubt, no doubt…

 

 

… it's such a fragile situation here that you want to have something ready to go, surely.

 

 

No, absolutely. I mean, and quite clearly, this is becoming a compelling case that the situation that the Labor Party has created with their overreach on the re-regulation of the labour market is making it more difficult for businesses…

 

 

Okay.

 

 

to employ…

 

 

Right…

 

 

and to manage their prosperity…

 

 

Well, let's hear Richard…

 

 

… in a difficult time. And that's what we're seeing in the manufacturing sector, we saw it with the Productivity Commission, which I'll be surprised if Richard disagrees with in relation to the retail sector. This is something that the government needs to urgently address.

 

 

 Should the government look at Fair Work Australia because it's — is there a — I think there is a review being undertaken at some level, but surely you can't think that you'd implement changes to laws and you're going to get it right straight off the bat.

 

 

Oh, we don't, but we certainly think that we've restored fundamental balance to our industrial relations system. And there may be some fine-tuning in the future which has happened with industrial law all the time. But in terms of restoring the fundamentals of balance to our industrial relations system, that was the first legislative act of this government. But can I say that every Australian worker will have fear struck into their hearts by the notion of Jamie Briggs…

 

 

Here we go. Yeah, we're not running scare campaigns.

 

 

No, by the notion of Jamie…

 

 

We're running a scare campaign.

 

 

Jamie Briggs and Tony Abbott talking in terms of industrial laws…

 

 

 So, Michael Chaney's wrong.

 

 

about the need to solve problems.

 

 

So Michael Chaney's wrong?

 

 

Solving problems of what…

 

 

Heather Ridout's wrong?

 

 

I think what workers…

 

 

Productivity Commission wrong?

 

 

What workers are going to hear when you and Tony Abbott talk about solving problems…

 

 

Glenn Stevens is wrong.

 

 

…is WorkChoices. That's what you can hear here. This is a return to WorkChoices.

 

 

Okay, let's take…

 

 

Michael Chaney…

 

 

The hand is raising from the grave and WorkChoices is going to…

 

 

Let's just get this right, Michael Chaney's wrong, Heather Ridout's wrong, the Reserve Bank Governor is wrong, the Productivity Commission is wrong, Gary Banks is wrong.

 

 

Well, the…

 

 

Is that — everyone's wrong bar the Labor Party?

 

 

Let's hear Richard…

 

 

Everyone's wrong.

 

 

The Howard Government and the Abbott Opposition were completely wrong in supporting WorkChoices. And every commentator, not just in this country but around the industrial world, said that put the balance in favour of employers in a way you didn't see in any other developed economy.

 

 

Okay, let's…

 

 

Scare campaigns are not going to solve…

 

 

Yeah, but that's a matter of fact. You can look at the ILO committee of experts who made all those pronouncements. That's not a scare campaign.

 

 

We're going to be discussing this over weeks and…

 

 

I don't think we're ever going to agree on this.

 

 

 I don't think we're ever going to — reach a truce on that one, no. I think you're not going to agree on the next issue either. Craig Thomson, he apparently George Brandis is going to pursue this with the New South Wales Police Commissioner today. Obviously this is the Coalition's avenue to government, is that why you're pursing it that hard?

 

 

Well no I don't think that's the reason we're pursing it that hard. I think the reason is that there are legitimate questions that need to be answered and the answer we're getting so far from the Government is that Craig's a good bloke, don't look here, and we don't think that's a reasonable response…

 

 

 Isn't it up to the DPP and the police to work out what they pursue…

 

 

Well somebody needs to make a complaint and I think…

 

 

that the Shadow Attorney General's going to be pursing it?

 

 

Well I think George has got questions which he outlined in the Senate last week which are reasonable questions which the fact is the incident does seem to be difficult to come to a logical conclusion about the stories to be honest. And I'm not making a judgement and that's for an investigation to do so. But I make this point. This is over $100,000 of other people's money. This is over $100,000 of working people's money which I've just been told, you know, we've just heard about the Labor movement defending these working people, this is ancillary workers in hospitals and healthcare centres who put their hard earned money into this union and $100,000 of it has been spent in ways which people have reasonable questions about this.

 

 

Okay well let's ask Richard about this. Richard does the Government have a backup option? Are you pursuing back up options for maybe moving Harry Jenkins to the back bench and Peter Slipper becomes the Speaker to protect your numbers in the House?

 

 

I think that is way ahead of where the game is at the moment. What we're seeing with George Brandis is grubby to be frank, well it is. You put it exactly right Kieran. The law runs its course and it's a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions to move down any of those paths but for the Shadow Attorney General to start doing this kind of thing is frankly grubby. There is no allegation of criminality here in relation to Craig Thomson. Again what we're seeing is opposition by hysteria. We have an opposition senator who is currently facing criminal charges. This is not something we've sought to make a big deal about. It's obviously a very difficult circumstance for her and indeed the whole situation. And she is entitled to the presumption of innocence and who knows how the law will mark its course in that case. But to see what's going on here is grubby and it is opposite to my….

 

 

Grubby after raising it.

 

 

 Do you think that there's an argument that Craig Thomson should be removed from his post as chairman of the Economics Committee — not saying he's guilty before he's even — his case is even heard or if there's any guilt proven but with the governor of the RBA fronting up on Friday, is this just a distraction that is not needed?

 

 

 Firstly, if we're about to say that you can make a whole lot of noise without there being any accusation of criminal activity at all, you can just go out there and make a wall of noise and people have to stand down from their positions, that would be the precedent created if Craig Thomson was to stand down.

 

 

 I mean Craig Thomson is doing a good job in his role here and representing his constituents in Dobell. That's the fact here. Craig Thomson has put his case forward in relation to this. He's entitled to the presumption of innocence in relation to it. Whatever proceedings occur will occur but it is certainly not the place for the Shadow Attorney General to try and initiate those.

 

 

So you're comfortable with $100,000 of expenditure on a union credit card which is questioned about who signed off on it, I mean that's the accusation the Sydney Morning Herald has made, not us, the Sydney Morning Herald. You're comfortable with working people's money being spent in this way?

 

 

 Well I'm not going to go into the details of that. Craig has made his case in relation to this and he has…

 

 

No he hasn't…

 

 

Well he has…

 

 

No he hasn't and that's the point we're making…

 

 

… he has and in terms of donations to Craig's campaign, there may be questions about whether they were declared early or late. Craig certainly wouldn't have been the first person to declare something late. But the fact of the matter is unions are entitled to support who they want in relation to an election campaign…

 

 

Absolutely but what were you on about?

 

 

and at that election campaign we saw unions everywhere trying to defeat a government which was doing everything they could…

 

 

But I don't think that's what all the money's been spent on its it? I mean at the end of the day what we're saying is you've just said he made his case. There's been no case made. Julia Gillard hasn't outlined to why she's got confidence still in Craig Thomson. We're saying there is a legitimate concern about the use of this money. This should be investigated and I think that's a reasonable point to be made, that's not grubby. To raise Senator Fisher is to frankly try and draw people into a very dangerous territory because if we want to go down that path we can also talk about a state Labor MP who's facing — in South Australia who's facing charges in relation to child pornography. I mean we are…

 

 

And Jamie this is where you…

 

 

This is about investigations.

 

 

 No, no, but the point is, this is where you and I now completely agree. We are going down difficult paths in relation to this which is why there needs to be a common standard and that is to…

 

 

Absolutely, that investigation should go, should occur.

 

 

… allow investigations and allow processes to take their course without politicians jumping in over the top of it and creating hysteria around it.

 

 

All right gents we'll wrap it up there. Thank you both for heated discussions always, Richard Marles and Jamie Briggs, thanks.