Topics: refugee resettlement agreements, travel provisions for former prime ministers, terms for federal governments, deficit levy.
E&OE
PETER VAN ONSELEN:
Let’s bring in the Special Minister of State, Scott Ryan. He joins me now live. Thanks very much for your company.
SENATOR SCOTT RYAN:
Good afternoon Peter, thanks for having me.
VAN ONSELEN:
Let’s start by talking about this people swap deal that was confirmed last night on [Andrew] Bolt’s program by Peter Dutton. He made it very clear that Australia will only take these Costa Rican refugees once we have certainty around America taking our refugees from Manus and Nauru.
You said in September last year, I see, quote “there is not, and there will be, no people swap”. Is it time to change your tune?
SENATOR RYAN:
I think Peter Dutton also said last night in the interview that this wasn’t a people swap.
VAN ONSELEN:
Well what is it then?
SENATOR RYAN:
Both countries retain control over who comes under the program under their respective refugee programs to their countries. In that sense, Peter made it clear that it wasn’t a people swap and the Government stands by that.
VAN ONSELEN:
If that’s not a people swap, what are the KPIs for something to be a people swap?
SENATOR RYAN:
The point, Peter, is that both countries retain control over who comes into their country under their respective refugee programs. In that case, it can’t be a people swap.
VAN ONSELEN:
But that was the case under the Malaysian agreement that Labor sought in government, your side of politics still call that a people swap.
SENATOR RYAN:
I don’t think we were the only ones that did that. I think other people did too. The key difference here is that we retain control, so does the United States, and of course, these are people who have been processed independently and are then overseen by the respective county’s authorities.
VAN ONSELEN:
That’s very similar to the Malaysian one because there was still that independent processing that took place, or was to take place before the people swap that then followed.
SENATOR RYAN:
If I recall correctly Peter, and this was a while ago and outside my portfolio area, that was an arrangement about specific numbers. That doesn’t apply in this case because both parties retain control over the number of people they accept.
VAN ONSELEN:
What about the Prime Minister’s comment that the two aren’t linked in any way. Surely if they aren’t linked in any way, as he has put it, Peter Dutton saying that we are going to wait for the Nauru and Manus refugees to be taken by the US before we take any Costa Rican refugees, that’s not them not being linked in any way, surely?
SENATOR RYAN:
I think the arrangements that were announced last year, the Government stands by the fact that they were separate arrangements. I didn’t see the interview last night, I read some of the comments in the press this morning and I interpreted them as an observation about how the program might work in a timely sense.
VAN ONSELEN:
If he is still making the point, as he did last night, that he is going to wait to see what happens with our Nauru and Manus refugees before accepting any Costa Rican refugees, that can’t be under any definition, can it, them not being linked it any way, which is how Mr Turnbull described it?
SENATOR RYAN:
That was the announcement made last year and the Government stands by that. They were two separate arrangements. I didn’t see all of the interview, I interpreted what I read this morning Peter, as an observation about how the program is coming together and how it’s working.
VAN ONSELEN:
It’s an unfortunate turn of phrase though. It would have been better if Peter Dutton had followed Julie Bishop’s turn of phrase when she was mopping this up from Washington.
SENATOR RYAN:
I didn’t see Julie’s interview this morning, I’m afraid, I’ve been at work. I just haven’t seen it so I can’t comment.
VAN ONSELEN:
Let’s move on. Let’s get on to your portfolio, or at least broadly speaking your portfolio: four-year service for a prime minister to receive entitlements. That’s what happens to NSW premiers. Cory Bernardi would like to see it extended to the federal sphere, what’s wrong with that?
SENATOR RYAN:
Look, last week this came up in a debate around abolishing the gold pass, the arrangement that allowed members and ministers who had served a long period of time to have a certain number of free flights for them and their spouse for the remainder of their lives. When the Government abolished that, when we put that through Parliament last week, we did basically say, other than former prime ministers because they have a special role. I think it’s fair to say all the prime ministers that I have seen in my eight and a half years in Parliament, and those who I remember seeing beforehand, they’ve all played a role in public life that is a little bit different to those who get to serve in Cabinet and those who of us who are ministers or members of parliament. I think it’s fair to say we can treat the former prime ministers differently, they are provided with an office and some staff to help deal with correspondence and invitations to public event, and I don’t think that’s unreasonable.
VAN ONSELEN:
Surely if it is good enough for NSW premiers, it is good enough for prime ministers? Cory Bernardi’s point is that it sends a nice message about the revolving door that the prime ministership has become since 2007.
SENATOR RYAN:
Look, do people think that Billy McMahon, who didn’t serve for four years …
VAN ONSELEN:
I think that’s a great example Scott Ryan, I’m disappointed I didn’t raise it myself. I think a lot of people would think that Billy McMahon didn’t deserve a rich set of parliamentary entitlements.
SENATOR RYAN:
No, they’re actually expenses to allow people to go about other work. We did apply, and we have applied in the law we passed, a public purpose test. John Gorton went on and was quite active in the community for years after he left office. What NSW does is a matter for NSW. We are a federation, different levels of government can make decisions as is appropriate for them. We believe this is appropriate at the Commonwealth level and so did the majority of Parliament.
VAN ONSELEN:
What do you think of David Coleman – your colleague’s – suggestion of four-year terms for Federal Parliament, emulating what happens in most states?
SENATOR RYAN:
Firstly, I want to congratulate David on bringing the idea forward. I encourage all of my colleagues to put ideas out there around improving our system of Government.
VAN ONSELEN:
Labor’s supporting it.
SENATOR RYAN:
Personally, I’m not a fan of four-year terms. I have seen lots of good governments, that have instituted very strong reforms, work under our three-year system. But four-year terms at the state level, in my experience, have led to governments that occasionally get a bit lazy or a government that, in essence, on some occasions, also seeing long-term governments stay around longer than they should. I’m also, despite being a senator, not necessarily in favour of giving senators eight-year terms. But this is a debate that people should have.
VAN ONSELEN:
But it’s a debate that you’re not, personally, inclined towards. Your argument being, by the sounds of it, that four-year terms doesn’t necessarily give you better government, but it locks in bad government for longer. Would that be a fair summation?
SENATOR RYAN:
I also think that three-year terms, I think that they keep the pressure on politicians to explain the argument for the policies we’re implementing. We’ve got to do that every day. I don’t think four-year governments, when I look back on the state level, I don’t think four-year governments have necessarily empowered a stronger reform agenda. The Kennett government did have four-year terms, but it effectively had a three- and a three-and-a-half-year term and it was one of the most reformist governments we’ve had in the last 30 or 40 years. The same applies to the Hawke government with tariffs and economic change and to Howard with the GST and industrial relations changes. I don’t think three-year terms stop reform, but I actually encourage the debate. Just because I have a different view, doesn’t mean I don’t think there is a place for the debate.
VAN ONSELEN:
For what it’s worth, I’m with you on this one. I don’t like the idea of four-year terms, I prefer three-year terms. What about the idea of fixing those three-year terms?
SENATOR RYAN:
I don’t necessarily see a reason why we should. In recent years, most parliaments have gone relatively close to three years.
VAN ONSELEN:
I’ll give you a good reason why, because the Senate is fixed. It is a fixed six-year term for the Senate and what that leads to is awkwardness.
SENATOR RYAN:
But what that leads to Peter, is effectively a fixed term to the House of Representatives. In recent years, the House of Representative’s flexibility, or the Government’s flexibility to call a House of Representative’s election, was down to a few months.
VAN ONSELEN:
As you know – you’re not wrong about that – but it does limit the scope for when the House of Representatives can be varied, but you have this dead zone that inevitably exists up until July 1 when the Senate changes over. If you fix the three-years, you could force that fixed timing to correlate with the fixed timing of the changeover of the Senate.
SENATOR RYAN:
When elections are held in the first half of the year that’s effectively how it works because you can have an election, as we did for several years, in March, and then the Senate would change over immediately following the budget, on July 1. I don’t necessarily think we should have fixed terms. I do think governments need flexibility. Again, my experience of fixed terms at the state level has meant that various things are discounted until the last five weeks, when the campaign becomes formal. I think politicians being subject to constant pressure lifts our performance.
VAN ONSELEN:
Just finally, maybe a quick comment on the Buffett tax, but what I’m interested in is the debt levy. It’s going to come off later this year. The deficit, however, hasn’t come off. It’s exactly where it was when you guys came to power and the deficit levy was brought in, so it is a deficit levy that’s done nothing to bring down the deficit.
SENATOR RYAN:
The deficit is a lot better than it was going to be Peter.
VAN ONSELEN:
So in other words, you would have blown out the deficit if you hadn’t brought in the deficit levy?
SENATOR RYAN:
Every spending measure the Government has instituted, as a Government policy, has been more than covered by spending reductions. We have made sure that we haven’t increased the deficit and constantly …
VAN ONSELEN:
Yeah, but you would have increased the deficit if you hadn’t brought in the deficit levy. Can’t you see the irony of that, the party of lower taxes increase the income tax, effectively, for a short period of time via the deficit levy and in doing so, has a stagnant deficit that would have otherwise gone up if it hadn’t been for the deficit levy? It could be Yes Minister script.
SENATOR RYAN:
As you know Peter, it wasn’t something that everyone was enamoured with at the time. But my point being, when we’ve introduce new spending measures, we have made savings in order to make sure we aren’t making the deficit worse. We have a situation now where Labor and the Greens complain about the deficit and then vote against measures to reduce it. That’s the Yes Minister script you’re referring to.
VAN ONSELEN:
Scott Ryan, always appreciate you joining us on News Day, thanks for doing so today.
[ENDS]