Topics: Peter Reith, childcare reforms, budget savings, Racial Discrimination Act Section 18C, schools funding, Pauline Hanson’s One Nation

 

E&OE …

 

RAF EPSTEIN:

Joining us from Canberra is the Liberal Senator for Victoria, he is also Malcolm Turnbull’s Special Minister of State, his name is Scott Ryan, Scott, good afternoon.

 

SENATOR SCOTT RYAN:

Good afternoon Raf.

 

EPSTEIN:

Also with him in our Canberra studio is Tanya Plibersek. She is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, she is the Shadow Minister for Education, welcome.

 

TANYA PLIBERSEK:

Good afternoon.

 

EPSTEIN:

Scott Ryan, if I could just get some news out of the way. Sadly Peter Reith, former Howard government minister, he was going to be in the running to be the leader of the party structure, the Liberal Party of Victoria. He’s been hospitalised. I don’t know if you know anything about that, but just a response?

 

SENATOR SCOTT RYAN:

Look I only know what’s in the public domain. Peter’s been a friend, and even a bit of a mentor, to a lot of my generation and definitely me. I only know what’s out in the public domain but I send my best to his family and wish him a speedy recovery.

 

EPSTEIN:

Do you know if he is still in the running to contest against Michael Kroger?

 

SENATOR RYAN:

An email came out from our state director a couple of hours ago, informing the party that Peter had withdrawn from the race due to his sudden illness.

 

EPSTEIN:

Is that a problem? Is anyone else going to contest it? Or does that mean Michael Kroger just goes on?

 

SENATOR RYAN:

Well as I understand, nominations closed several weeks ago so that would mean Michael is the only nominee.

 

EPSTEIN: You don’t have intimate knowledge of whether or not someone gets sick and pulls out, whether there is a change?

 

SENATOR RYAN:

I’m not sure how much this interests your listeners, but I used to be chairman of the rules committee and I don’t think there is that provision there. But honestly, I haven’t looked. As far as I know, no, that’s not possible.

 

EPSTEIN:

Let’s talk about the childcare changes. There’s a whole lot of details around the Government trying to get some savings through the Senate. If we can try and keep it relatively simple, are you confident your childcare changes are going to go through?

 

SENATOR RYAN:

Well I’ve learnt not to be too confident about my chamber, Raf. I don’t want to count my chickens before they hatch. I am hopeful that they will. I think they are very necessary changes. They redirect a great deal of support to families – and particularly women – at the lower end of the income scale. They will make childcare more accessible and work more affordable for the great bulk of Australian families.

 

EPSTEIN:

Tanya Plibersek, do you think those changes will go through? Just the childcare ones?

 

TANYA PLIBERSEK:

We have still got a lot of concerns about this package. About a third of families will be worse off. We’re still opposed to the cuts that will pay for them. These are cuts that have been resurrected from the horror 2014 budget and I’m particularly concerned, as well, about disadvantaged children. They’ll have their access to childcare cut from 24 hours a week to, under this proposal, 12 hours a week. Budget base funded services, Indigenous services, services in remote communities are likely to lose funding under the proposal as it stands now. I believe there is a lot of negotiation going on around some of these flaws, which we’d like to see improve, but a number of these things are still up in the air, including that some of these savings are still the same nasty savings we’ve kept saying no to year after year.

 

EPSTEIN:

Scott Ryan, if I can ask you about one of the ‘nasty savings’ as Tanya Plibersek calls them. Is this correct, there’s a pause in the indexation of Family Tax Benefit Part B, so it would no longer go up, say, with inflation, that I think was introduced when Tony Abbott was Prime Minister, I think in his first budget. I just wanted some clarification; previously the crossbench had rejected that. Has Nick Xenophon now said that he will accept that?

 

SENATOR RYAN:

Raf, I’ll be honest with you, I’m not party to the actual negotiations, it not being my portfolio.

 

EPSTEIN: I guess I am asking if you think there are signs of progress?

 

SENATOR RYAN:

In the Senate this morning there was a change to the hours in which we meet – we are sitting later tonight, tomorrow night and Friday. I am hopeful that will give us the time to deal with it. But the pause that you mentioned, I actually think that is particularly fair. It doesn’t take any money from anyone, it freezes indexation, and it actually funds substantial redirection of resources to people for whom childcare costs are a barrier. That redirection unashamedly goes down the income scale so people like politicians’ families will be worse off, but people who don’t have jobs that pay as well as ours will be better off.

 

EPSTEIN: Is he right Tanya?

 

PLIBERSEK:

Well a third of families will be worse off, I think 1.5 million families from the last information I had will be affected by the Family Tax Benefit changes. In one sense, you’re robbing one group of families to pay benefits to another group of families.

 

EPSTEIN:

Can I ask you to address that point because you’re not robbing, it’s a freezing and you’re redistributing, do you accept that argument?

 

PLIBERSEK:

Well, no. We’re very concerned about the cuts that will supposedly pay for the childcare package. We’ve said no to these cuts before. I don’t know why the Government thinks that we would change our views on the cuts now. You asked the right question, perhaps they’ve got crossbench support to make these cuts to family payments, but that’s yet to be seen. There are still a couple of days of negotiation, from what I can tell, in the Senate.

 

EPSTEIN:

Yeah, furious negotiations from the look of it. I’m finding it hard to follow.

1300 222 774 is the phone number. That’s Tanya Plibersek you can hear, she is the deputy to Bill Shorten. Scott Ryan helps gets the Cabinet agenda together. So if you’ve got a question for them 1300 222 744.

On the changes to 18C Scott Ryan, we had a chat to Colin Rubenstein from AIJAC at the top of the hour. Can I ask you a question on this? The two most often cited cases, Bill Leak’s and the QUT students – almost certain to not get anywhere if you change the process. So why go further than simply changing the process? Why change the laws as well?

 

SENATOR RYAN: Because as the Prime Minister’s made clear, and there are other cases as well – what we saw with the QUT case wasn’t just about the procedure, it was about the low bar that existed in that case. Let’s be honest, we are not just talking about the QUT case, something that people might hear about, it was four students put through the ringer for a couple of years. Some of them had tens of thousands of dollars of debt, they had a Go Fund Me site to pay their lawyers’ bills, they had to find pro bono lawyers. The process there was indeed a profound punishment, even though there was no real prospect with it going on and it didn’t go on. We believe that the words ‘insult’, ‘offend’ and ‘intimidate’ can be replaced with a meaningful word , ‘harass’, which has a meaningful definition at law because we do use the word ‘harass’. That will do several things. It will make the law entirely workable, it will make the law fair and it will still leave a strong law in place for conduct that no Australian really wants to see in our community.

 

EPSTEIN:

Why didn’t the Prime Minister make that argument? He was asked five or six times last year if he wanted to change it before and after the election. He never put forward the argument you just put forward, why not?

 

SENATOR RYAN: Well I think, as the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General did make clear, the QUT case was underway for a couple of years. Even once we thought it had been concluded there was a final process that those students – or former students by that point – were put through. The Bill Leak case, they are developments that have happened over the last year and the process, in some cases, have wound up since the election. The Prime Minister, actually before he was Prime Minister, made the point that he thought insult and offend were too low a standard and he never said this was not going to happen.

 

EPSTEIN:

He always said this was not a priority though. He did say a number of times, ‘we have no plans’. He said that numerous times.

 

SENATOR RYAN: But he also made clear yesterday, he explained why this is something the Government thinks we need to do.

 

PLIBERSEK: Well Raf he said just a few months ago that he wasn’t going to proceed to these changes because he hadn’t taken them to the last election. I think the fact that the Prime Minister keeps referring to cases that would have been unsuccessful is pretty telling. Last year there were 77 complaints, more than half were conciliated, some were thrown out. Only one actually proceeded to court. So we’ve gone through all this rigmarole, all this public debate, angst, a Prime Minister saying to people that it’s ok to offend, humiliate and so on, their fellow citizens and all for what? For one case that ended up in court last year.

 

SENATOR RYAN:

That is complete crap. To say that anyone has said it is ok to do that is completely unfair.

 

PLIBERSEK:

That’s the message that this Government is sending, that it is ok to be a bigot, as your own Attorney General said.

 

SENATOR RYAN:

No, he didn’t say that at all.

 

PLIBERSEK: He said that people have a right to be a bigot.

 

SENATOR RYAN: Be very precise with your words Tanya, there’s a very big difference between the Government has said it is ok to insult, that’s very different …

 

PLIBERSEK:

Meanwhile, unemployment is as high as it was during the GFC. Meanwhile, underemployment is a problem.

 

EPSTEIN: Tanya Plibersek, I’m interested in getting onto wider issues.

 

PLIBERSEK:

These are the real issues.

 

EPSTEIN:

I’m interested in that. Can I just ask you both, Scott Ryan, your party clearly feels it is a restriction on freedom of speech. Are there going to be more things said that have not been said in the past as a result of the law change?

 

SENATOR RYAN:

I don’t think so.

 

EPSTEIN: Then why change the law?

 

SENATOR RYAN:

Let me read you words from another judgement – and this was Justice Bromberg in the judgement he delivered: “People should be free to fully identify with their race without fear of public disdain or loss of esteem for so identifying”. I don’t think anyone thinks loss of esteem should be a bar by which we threaten people with legal action. The conciliation process Tanya talks about can be quite a gruelling process. Imagine you suddenly received a summons to effectively say ‘you have to come to this and you have to go through this process’.

 

EPSTEIN:

So you don’t think what actually goes into debate is actually going to change, just whether or not people get sanctioned after that debate?

 

SENATOR RYAN: I think we have to have a law that is perceived to be fair by the entire community …

 

PLIBERSEK: But people who have experienced discrimination don’t really like the idea that it’s going to be easier to offend or insult someone.

 

SENATOR RYAN: Neither do the people who have been dragged through two years of process like the QUT kids.

 

PLIBERSEK: So fix the process. There is widespread agreement that the process could be a better process.

 

SENATOR RYAN:

[inaudible] how low the bar is.

 

EPSTEIN:

Tanya, do you think what is said in public will change as a result of this?

 

PLIBERSEK: Yes of course I do. I think this gives a green light to a whole lot of things that don’t make us a more cohesive or more united community. I think frankly, a time when we want a strong and united and cohesive community for national security reasons if no other. That’s not a good thing. It’s a backwards step.

I thought it was really telling when Anne Aly asked this question of the Prime Minister yesterday when she made this point that it’s ok for people, like the Prime Minister, who’ve never experienced this sort of hate speech, to say that this protection is not necessary.

 

SENATOR RYAN:

That is one of the most dangerous things to say in our community that somehow laws should be crafted and opinions should be offered, solely, by those who have experience. I’m not dismissing any of that …

 

EPSTEIN: Scott Ryan, Tanya Plibersek, let me insert a caller into the conversation. It’s 14 minutes to five o’clock, you can hear Scott Ryan then from the Government, Tanya Plibersek is from the Labor Party. Tas is from Warragul, what did you want to say?

 

CALLER:

Thanks Raf, thanks for taking my call. I just want to ask a question to Mr Scott Ryan. Why Government is trying to change the Racial Discrimination Act 18C at this stage? Is it a priority for the Government at the moment, or what are the key priorities that they should get on to make sure that all Australians are having a fair go in terms of employment and prosperity: number one? And number two, as you know and as you have picked up from my accent …

 

EPSTEIN:

Keep it brief Tas.

 

CALLER:

As you have picked up from my accent, I am coming from a different background, I am a new Australian, going to be. I really feel terrified when they are changing that racial vilification, hatred, into so-called harassment and trying to water down the law. Why? Have they actually considered what is going on, the impact in the minority communities?

 

EPSTEIN: Tas, if I could …

 

CALLER:

Last question: and do they have any real connect with the community at all, sitting at the ministry, sitting in the Government? I mean what’s their roles and responsibilities?

 

EPSTEIN: Look Tas, it’s not a chance, sadly, to get everything that you want to say.

 

Scott Ryan, he is terrified and he wants to know what your Government’s priorities are?

 

SENATOR RYAN:

Well firstly, we are going to be here, in the Senate probably till midnight tonight and tomorrow night and probably some of Friday dealing with the priority we were talking about earlier – childcare – because we know that makes a meaningful difference to people trying to get jobs. We are preparing a budget, which will come out in May, which is going to be focussed on our election promises and making it easier for business to employ more people.

 

EPSTEIN: And how he is feeling about the law change?

 

SENATOR RYAN:

In response to that issue, what I would say is that the law, as it stands, doesn’t say what it said it was going to do when it was introduced in 1995. Australia’s most successful record globally, on immigration success, and multicultural society, was very successful before this law existed because this law came into place in 1995. I don’t think Australians have a reason to feel afraid of one another. I think that is a dark side of Labor, they are trying to stoke fear.

 

EPSTEIN:

He wants to know what your connections are. He doubts your connections to the community, I suppose. That would sum up Tas’ fear, he thinks you’re stuck away in Canberra and not connected to the community.

 

SENATOR RYAN:

I get away from Canberra as often as I can and come home, so look, that’s something that is levelled at a lot of politicians. We do our best. We have to travel a lot, we also spend 26-odd weeks, if not more, on the road or in Canberra, but I think Australians have a reason to have faith in one another and that is what I’m concerned about. The Labor Party’s approach is to stoke fear, it is to tell Australians they can’t trust one another. They did it on the plebiscite, where the reason they offered was ‘some Australians will say terrible things’, rather than the 99.9 per cent who will repudiate them.

 

EPSTEIN:

Tanya Plibersek, just quickly, do you think you’re stoking fear?

 

PLIBERSEK:

I think it is very easy if you’ve never been the subject of the sort of hate speech we are talking about to say that these fears are unreasonable or exaggerated. It’s not until you’ve experienced it that you understand the deep and profound affect that it can have on you, on your life, on your family. I agree with the other Scott – Scott Morrison – who says these changes won’t create a single job. That’s the other thing, it’s extraordinary to me that a Government that is seeing unemployment rise, wages fall, debt rise, deficit rise, is actually focussed on this instead of their day job.

 

EPSTEIN:

Ok let’s get a quick traffic update.

[TRAFFIC UPDATE]

 

The Deputy Labor Leader Tanya Plibersek is in our Canberra studio, so too is Scott Ryan, Malcolm Turnbull’s Special Minister of State. Some of your texts:

 

[READ OUT TEXTS]

 

Tanya Plibersek, you’re Shadow Education Minister as well. I know you’re keen to prosecute arguments on Gonski funding. Can I just ask you, Ken Boston spoke recently – he was on the Gonski Review. He says the ALP and Government ignored the key recommendation that funding needed to be sector blind and needs-based. I suppose the simplification of that is you should have taken money away from wealthy private schools and given it to poorer private schools. Is he right?

 

PLIBERSEK:

No, he is completely wrong. The program we signed up to was a sector-blind, needs-based funding program that sought to reach a schooling resource standard for every school across Australia. Now Ken, and others, have criticised the fact we didn’t cut harder at the upper end and, like we’ve said to the Government, if they want to come to us with a proposal that brings over-funded schools down to a fairer funding level more quickly, well we’re open to that. But the real issue here …

 

EPSTEIN: So you’ll only propose it if the Government agrees with you?

 

PLIBERSEK:

Well, the real issue is here the $30 billion this Government is cutting from schools right across Australia. It’s an average of $3 million per school, for every school across Australia for the next decade. We are not going to get diverted by the arcane side issues. The real issue is that in the 2014-15 Budget on page seven of the budget overview, it shows that school funding will fall compared with funding under Labor of $30 billion over a decade and that means all the reforms that we want to do – improving teacher quality, better initial teacher training, more support for our teachers to increase their skills and knowledge all the time, more individual attention in the classroom, better maths, literacy, science, specialist programs, more help for kids who are falling behind, extension for gifted and talented kids – none of this can happen without some extra support, some extra funding. It’s extraordinary that we now have, only a Government that’s cutting $30 billion would try and say that extra funding in our schools wouldn’t make a difference.

 

EPSTEIN:

Scott Ryan is she right?

 

SENATOR RYAN:

Well it wasn’t one deal, it was 27.

 

PLIBERSEK:

Because they all started in different places.

 

SENATOR RYAN:

Students in some states got $1500 more than students in other states.

 

It’s not us saying that, it’s one of the authors of the plan who also said, providing the so-called last two years of Gonski funding will not deal with the fundamental problems facing Australian education.

 

EPSTEIN: I can make the same point to you Scott Ryan.

 

SENATOR RYAN:

Funding is going up. Labor made promises, which they didn’t have in their budget. Funding has gone from $16 billion and it will go up to $20 billion and it is needs-based as Ken Boston has said both sides have, but he has criticised other aspects of both sides of politics.

 

EPSTEIN:

But don’t both sides – you both need to take money away from and agree to take money away from the over-funded private schools so that you can give it to the under-funded public and private schools. That’s what the Gonski review recommended and neither side of politics has embraced that.

 

SENATOR RYAN: We’re not the ones running a misleading campaign saying that we have, where we’ve signed 27 deals … [interrupted]

 

PLIBERSEK: Can I just address this Rafi? The reasons is there are a number of different arrangements is because every state and territory started in a different position; some were funding their schools better. Then you’ve got agreements with the Catholic sector and independent sector. It is misleading to pretend that there are a whole lot of different deals because there were special side deals or whatever. Every state and territory started in a different position: Western Australia’s system was better funded, for example, it was already closer to the schooling resource standard then some of the other states I might mention. That’s why we’ve got different trajectories because there are different starting points but the end point is the same. We say that the poorer schools need the fastest increase in the fastest time.

 

EPSTEIN:

Do you agree on that Scott Ryan, poorer schools, fastest increase over time?

 

SENATOR RYAN:

We are actually ensuring that there is needs-based funding, but the problem we had was no money was provided for this. Like the Labor Party did on Universal Access for Kindergarten, it led to dramatically levels of Commonwealth funding in different states, which has a real fairness issue. We know, from the last few years, even just recently, that we need to focus on other things in our schools: teacher training, ensuring teachers have correct skills to go into the classroom. Labor’s got this Gonski slogan that doesn’t reflect what they did in government when they had these separate deals that funded students very differently in different states. They’re trying to hide that record.

 

EPSTEIN:

If I can just try and end on a totally different note if I can, quick comment …

 

PLIBERSEK: Except there are two things that are wrong in what Scott said.

 

EPSTEIN: Not everyone gets to reply to every point, forgive me.

Do either of you think Pauline Hanson’s policies are racist? If you’re banning Muslim immigration and calling it a totalitarian ideology, do either of you think that is racism? Scott Ryan?

 

SENATOR RYAN:

Well I think to say we are being invaded by Asians is racist. I’m not sure on a technical level saying it about Muslims – I profoundly disagree with it, but whether it is racist, yeah it qualifies as a prejudice I am not comfortable with. I agree with you, but it has been put to me that you can’t say it is racist because it is not about a race, it’s about a religion and a culture.

 

EPSTEIN: Yeah ok. Tanya Plibersek is it racist? Are Pauline Hanson’s party’s policies racist?

 

PLIBERSEK: I think you’d have to say yes but it’s not, that’s not the only problem with them. Here is a party that says Vladimir Putin is a good guy, that is prepared to overlook that he is ultimately responsible for the downing of an aircraft that cost hundreds of lives, including 38 Australians. They’re prepared to say that vaccination should be optional for parents, that they should do their own investigations. They’re the people that say Port Arthur was a hoax, that 9-11 was hoax. We had one of their senators just a couple of days ago say that sexual harassment laws should be weakened. There is a string of extraordinary policy pronouncements from this party, a string as long as your arm.

 

EPSTEIN:

Tanya Plibersek, Scott Ryan, thank you for your time today.

 

[ENDS]