19 September 2011 in Media
To listen to the audio of this interview, please click here.
DAVID SPEERS:
Welcome to our panel. Joining us this morning, Liberal MP, Jamie Briggs, and Labor's Richard Marles. Good to see you both. Welcome. The migration debate is really gathering steam. The Prime Minister and Opposition Leader meet today. Is there any point in this meeting, Richard, do you think?
RICHARD MARLES:
We're obviously concerned about the fact that Shadow Cabinet is meeting before that meeting. Tony Abbott said at the outset he wanted to do all this in good faith, it was going to be constructive in terms of changes to legislation. We've seen anything but that in the last few days.
SPEERS:
What's wrong with Shadow Cabinet meeting first, though? They've got to work out what approach he's going to take in the meeting, whether he's going to put forward some alternatives.
MARLES:
I think the question we need to ask Shadow Cabinet is are they going to empower Tony Abbott to have a proper, fair dinkum conversation with the Prime Minister about trying to sort this problem or are they going to send him in with a predetermined obstructionist position, which is aimed at saying no. And I think we know the answer to that question.
SPEERS:
Well yeah, but hang on. How constructive is the Government being here? I mean, when the High Court ruling happened, no meeting with Tony Abbott. When you proposed this amendment, no meeting with Tony Abbott. Now on the eve of the legislation being introduced, you're finally meeting with him in a last-ditch bid. I mean, is that constructive?
MARLES:
Oh, we've provided him with legal briefings; we've been working with him in that sense. We made it clear from the outset that we were happy to talk to him in a context where he was willing, at least he said at the outset — was willing to talk to us in good faith. But we're not seeing that now. I mean this mob have stopped trying to solve this problem and they're all about trying to play politics with it, and I think they're going to be judged harshly as a result.
SPEERS:
Jamie?
JAMIE BRIGGS:
Well look, this is a Labor Party who's caused the problem who are now seeking anyone else to help them they possibly can find. I mean, this idea that somehow the Opposition's got to solve the Government's problem when they created this problem in the first place is a joke. By the way, we do have a solution to the problem…
SPEERS:
It's a problem that also came from the High Court…
MARLES:
Yeah, the High Court…
BRIGGS:
No, no, no, no, no. This is a problem which there was no problem in September 2008. The boats had stopped. You changed…
MARLES:
Yeah, and the High Court would rule out what you guys did.
BRIGGS:
No, no, no, you changed the law. There was High Court challenges with Nauru previously.
MARLES:
Yeah, the High Court's made it clear that Nauru and Manus Island under the Howard Government…
BRIGGS:
Richard, Richard, Richard. No, this is somehow…
MARLES:
…could not have happened.
BRIGGS:
No, this is, this is the great Labor Party's — everyone else's fault but theirs…
SPEERS:
Jamie Briggs, there's…
BRIGGS:
…everyone else's fault but theirs.
SPEERS:
No, but there's no — there's no doubt, and I'm not sure what legal expertise you have, Jamie Briggs, but there's no doubt the High Court has put a different interpretation on the Migration Act…
BRIGGS:
Yeah, but we've got to go back a step.
SPEERS:
…that previously existed, right?
BRIGGS:
We've got to go back a step, though.
SPEERS:
We know their history, we know their history…
BRIGGS:
This is the problem, no, no, no…
SPEERS:
…but this High Court ruling has changed the interpretation of the Migration Act, right?
BRIGGS:
Sure.
SPEERS:
So there is some doubt about offshore processing.
BRIGGS:
Sure.
SPEERS:
How strong that doubt is, whether you think Nauru might still be okay or not, there's some doubt about it.
BRIGGS:
Sure.
SPEERS:
So why not change the Migration Act?
BRIGGS:
Because our view is that we believe, our advice is that Nauru, and you just heard Scott say, Nauru, plus temporary protection visas, plus a range of other measures will work.
SPEERS:
You think it will, but what happens when, if it's knocked out by the court?
BRIGGS:
And you know what, we're so confident about this, we actually…
SPEERS:
What happens if it's knocked out by the court?
BRIGGS:
Well, they're matters you deal with then. But I mean, at this point, we took a policy to the election, I know this is unusual for the Labor Party to understand because they don't sort of get this, you take a policy to the election and then you stick with it.
MARLES:
Like WorkChoices. You took that to the election.
BRIGGS:
We took, well if we want to go back to previous elections…
SPEERS:
Let's not go to WorkChoices or previous elections, please.
BRIGGS:
We want to go back to prev… I mean, this, no, no, no, this idea now that the Labor Party…
MARLES:
Has a mandate, WorkChoices.
BRIGGS:
No, no, but…
SPEERS:
All right, let's have a look at the…
BRIGGS:
No, no, but the now, no, no, let me just finish the point.
SPEERS:
Finish please.
BRIGGS:
Now the Labor Party wants the Opposition Leader to assist and he's always no and so forth, I just want Richard to give me one example when Labor was in Opposition, one example where the Labor Party helped the Government. One. One, quick, quick, one, one. Speersy, hurry up. One.
MARLES:
The issue here…
BRIGGS:
There is none. It's a joke.
MARLES:
The issue here is that the law has changed. Nauru and Manus…
BRIGGS:
You can't. Not one.
MARLES:
…which you guys did would not be legal now.
BRIGGS:
Not one. Not one reform in the Howard Government did you support.
SPEERS:
Richard, there's not just pressure on Julia Gillard and the Government coming from the right, from the Coalition, but also from within Labor as well. Now, the left have seen this amendment. It was only released on Friday and it's very open ended. It says: The minister may in writing designate that a country is an offshore processing country. The rules of natural justice do not apply to the exercise of the power under this subsection. It's open slather. The minister can choose where to send asylum seekers with very few safeguards, and when it comes to, you know, having to table any agreements that have been made with that country or any consultations with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, it says: a failure to comply with this doesn't affect the validity of the designation. So you can, it's open slather.
MARLES:
Yes, but we know the answer to why, it is that because the High Court came up with a decision, which has clearly put doubt on all offshore processing, including Nauru and Manus, as was done by the Howard Government.
SPEERS:
But there's no safeguards.
MARLES:
No, but, no, no, but what we're now trying to do is put in place legislation which removes that doubt, which returns us to the position that everyone understood the law to be prior to the High Court decision.
SPEERS:
Why can't you have some human rights safeguards in there, because as many in your party have pointed out and this is your platform, ALP platform, ‘protection claims made in Australia will be assessed by Australians on Australian territory’.
MARLES:
Yeah, well the…
BRIGGS:
That's just a platform.
MARLES:
No, no, well, the platform also makes it clear that we should be discouraging people coming by boats and that we need to put in place protections in relation to that as well.
SPEERS:
Yeah, but what's this worth? What's the platform worth?
MARLES:
The platform's worth a lot. But the platform makes it clear that we should be discouraging people coming here by boat, that we do need to look at our borders in that regard and that we need to…
MARLES:
No. And that we need to be having an orderly and proper migration process…
SPEERS:
And that you need to assess…
MARLES:
…which involves the UNHCR.
SPEERS:
…assess protection claims made in Australia, assessed by Australians on Australian territory.
MARLES:
What we need to do is to make sure that we put in place legislation which removes the doubt that the High Court have put in place. That's what this legislation does. That's…
SPEERS:
Even though it's going against the platform.
MARLES:
But let me, that's what, well, I don't believe it does go against the platform. That's what the Caucus… And the platform, the platform has a fair bit of commentary about dealing with migration, which in turn has been, is hard to reconcile in the context of this High Court decision. I mean, the fact of the matter is, the law is now different, and that's an issue for the platform as much as it is for the Migration Act. We need to change the Migration Act to remove all doubt.
SPEERS:
And the platform.
BRIGGS:
Sounds like you need to change the platform.
MARLES:
And I'm sure the platform will when we look at it, but…
SPEERS:
So this will be looked at the conference at the end of the year.
MARLES:
But what we need to be doing now is making sure that we remove any doubt from the Migration Act. That's what this draft does; that's what the Caucus said we should do last week. And I am completely happy that this draft is consistent with the Caucus' decision.
SPEERS:
If there's no agreement today between Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott, what then? What do you do? Do you embrace Nauru? Do you just process onshore? What do you do?
MARLES:
Oh well, let's see where we get to at that point. But we have put up a pretty clear proposition. Let's remove doubt from the Migration Act which was created, doubt created by the High Court, we didn't make the High Court decision, the High Court made the decision.
BRIGGS:
You created the problem.
MARLES:
So let's remove the doubt associated with that. It's now up to Tony Abbott as to whether he's going to do that as well…
BRIGGS:
Laughs
MARLES:
…so that if you were ever in government, you can implement your policy.
SPEERS:
Let's change topic. The carbon tax bill's still being debated in Parliament. Today in The Sydney Morning Herald, some Treasury modelling of, line by line what the carbon tax impact is going to be on various things. Milk, one cent a litre; cereal, two cents a box. As you can see there, some other staples; cheese, bread, wine, beer all less than 10 cents. Yes, electricity and water and fuel are going to cost more. Those price rises are much higher. But people won't be too worried you wouldn't think, Jamie Briggs, about the basics in the kitchen cupboard?
BRIGGS:
Well, let's see what people have to say. I mean if this is such a great policy, let's take it to an election. I mean, this is our point we've made for some time now. It gets back to this whole idea about taking a policy to an election and sticking with it after. I know it's unusual, but…
SPEERS:
Yeah, but just, the question on what those price impacts are, how does that fit with the campaign the Coalition has waged against the impact this carbon tax is going to have?
BRIGGS:
Well it will have an impact, I mean, quite clearly. I mean, this is a part of a model we haven't sent yet, let's be honest. But it will have an impact. I mean, quite clearly, the electricity price impact will be significant. Now we say the price impact will be significant, the biggest carbon tax in the world. It will be the biggest carbon tax in the world, quite clearly. It will have a significant impact on people's lives and it will have very little environmental benefit. That's what we've been saying for some time now. We maintain that position. Now if the government's so proud of this legislation, they should take it to the people. I mean, it's a very simple thing for them to do. If they think that this is not going to have an effect and it's going to have some great, it'll have a great environmental effect, if they think their policy's right, let's have it off and let's have it off…
SPEERS:
All right.
BRIGGS:
…and let's give people a choice.
SPEERS:
On those prices, Richard, are you more comfortable, are you worried? There's not much on milk, bread, cereal, but fuel and water is going up.
MARLES:
Oh well for gas, electricity, water, the big ticket items in those prices are still less than five dollars a week. And we've made it clear that the pricing was going to be around an impact of just under $10 a week per household. We're now seeing that on household staples like milk a cent a litre, I think it's 40 cents a week on rent. This bells the cat on the scare campaign that's been undertaken by the other side here. And the problem with scare…
BRIGGS:
So it's okay for small businesses?
MARLES:
The problem with scare…
BRIGGS:
The impact for small businesses is fine. Yeah.
MARLES:
…the problem with scare campaigns is that eventually reality bites. And people get to see that it's not the great big tax on everything which they've been talking about for some time now. Now in terms of Jamie saying what we take to elections…
BRIGGS:
Yeah.
MARLES:
…let's be clear. We took an emissions trading scheme to the 2007 election and the 2010 election.
BRIGGS:
Then you backed away from it.
SPEERS:
Oh, hang on. Hang on. Hang on.
BRIGGS:
You backed away from it.
MARLES:
No. We did.
BRIGGS:
You rolled…
SPEERS:
You didn't…no.
BRIGGS:
…you rolled Kevin Rudd.
MARLES:
No, we did.
SPEERS:
At the 2010 election it was, we want to have a community consensus…
BRIGGS:
Exactly.
SPEERS:
… on the need for action on climate change.
MARLES:
An emissions trading scheme.
BRIGGS:
No, no, no,no.
MARLES:
…looking at an emissions trading scheme.
BRIGGS:
A hundred and fifty people…
SPEERS:
Looking at.
BRIGGS:
…one hundred and fifty people from the phone book to come in their cash for clunkers vehicles…
SPEERS:
Are you honestly saying there was a commitment to an emissions trading scheme at the last election?
MARLES:
What I'm saying is — what I'm saying is that if you look at Labor — well what I'm saying is an emissions trading scheme was very much on the table at the last election.
BRIGGS:
Where?
SPEERS:
That's a long way short of a commitment to introduce a carbon tax.
MARLES:
Well it was on the table last election.
BRIGGS:
Where?
MARLES:
And if you look…
BRIGGS:
When did you announce that?
MARLES:
…at what we've been doing since 2006 in the lead up to the 2007 election, it has been utterly clear that we have been all about an emissions trading scheme…
BRIGGS:
It wasn't clear to Kevin Rudd when they ca… when the men got him with the knife.
MARLES:
… we've been all about emissions trading scheme and that's what we're now doing.
SPEERS:
Would it be handy to see some Treasury modelling of what the direct action plan of Tony Abbott's going to do?
BRIGGS:
Well ours is a costed policy. We've said we'll spend $3.2 billion on buying back emissions. That's what, it's clear, I mean we, it's a capped policy.
SPEERS:
What do you think of Tony Abbott's refusal to allow offshore carbon permits to be bought?
BRIGGS:
Well quite obviously, the government's policy will lead to higher emissions in Australia, their own documentation says that. So the only way they achieve their policy outcome is to buy, is by purchasing carbons from offshore.
SPEERS:
Well that's what industry wants…
BRIGGS:
Carbon permits from offshore.
SPEERS:
…because it's a lot cheaper to buy these permits offshore.
BRIGGS:
Well our issue is, well…
SPEERS:
So do you think they should only be bought in Australia?
BRIGGS:
No, no, no. Well I think there is genuine concerns about purchasing offshore. And we've seen in Norway, Norway's hardly third world or a developing country. It's one of the most sophisticated countries in the world. And there's a huge carbon fraud going on there at the moment. So there's legitimate concerns about…
SPEERS:
But you know, that's identified and dealt with.
BRIGGS:
…this purchase.
SPEERS:
There's mechanisms to ensure that carbon permits are legit.
BRIGGS:
From this government? This was the same government that brought us the insulation debacle. This is the same government that brought us green loans. This is the same government that's brought us, you know, farcical after farcical scheme….
SPEERS:
All right so, okay, but you're entirely comfortable with just having carbon permits bought in Australia, despite all the industry groups — even the minerals council supports buying permits offshore.
BRIGGS:
Look, I'm comfortable with our policy position which is we think we can achieve the five per cent reduction by 2020 by a policy of direct action.
MARLES:
No one else does. Literally, no one else does.
BRIGGS:
Well no one else thinks you can fix the border security issues either, mate…because you guys caused this problem in the first place so if we want to…
MARLES:
I want to know, are they going to submit their costings to the parliamentary budget office?
BRIGGS:
Well let's have genuine parl…
MARLES:
That's the…
BRIGGS:
I'm glad you raised this. Let's have a genuine parliamentary budget office.
MARLES:
Seventy billion dollar black hole.
BRIGGS:
You know this farcical….
MARLES:
I mean I suppose if I had a $70 billion black hole, I wouldn't want to show my work to the teacher either.
BRIGGS:
Well you do, most budgets. Last year's budget blew out by $30 billion.
SPEERS:
This is a, just finally…
BRIGGS:
Last years budget blew out by $30 billion.
SPEERS:
…this is an interesting point. This Parliamentary Budget Office, there's a real stalemate between the two sides over this issue. This was meant to be set up to end the thing we go through at every election of; no, we won’t submit our policies for costing by Treasury. It's stuck because the opposition doesn't want this Parliamentary Budget Office to release all of your policies at the start of the campaign.
BRIGGS:
Sure. Well, for a couple of reasons it's actually stuck. One of the reasons is that the Labor Government doesn't want any competitive tension in the advice. We say, let's be the like the congressional budget office — let's give them power to go and make their own economic forecasts and so forth. These guys are saying no, no, no, Treasury is the only economist in the country who'll get the economic forecast right, even though they don't. And that's not a criticism of Treasury, they it's a, this is a, it's the…
MARLES:
There were shadow cabinet ministers who were participating in the committee process which came up with this recommendation.
SPEERS:
Yes, it was recommended by Chris Pyne, wasn't it?
BRIGGS:
No, no, no it wasn't. No, there was a general principle recommended in a report. We're making legitimate amendments. Now, you're talking about working together on policy issues, but when it comes to this, all you want to do is play politics. There is some…
MARLES:
You want the ability to be able to pay people, the Liberal Party to pay people to do your costing. I mean we know what the outcomes of those costings are going to be.
BRIGGS:
No, no we don't. No, what we say…
SPEERS:
We're out of time. But we're going to end up with square one, aren't we? We're not going to have any sort of Parliamentary Budget Office.
BRIGGS:
I hope we do because I think it would be a really good reform, and not just for us in opposition and for the cross benchers, but when you eventually go into opposition and you're opposition leader, mate, you will want this as an opportunity to cost your policies.
MARLES:
We know the Libs will take a many billion dollar black hole to the next election, that's what we know.
SPEERS:
All right, we're out of time, Opposition Leader Richard Marles, sorry.
SPEERS:
Richard Marles, Labor MP and Jamie Briggs, good to talk to you both this morning.
MARLES:
Thanks David.