Lyndal Curtis: Ed [Husic], the former Industry Minister Kim Carr’s also released a statement saying the change of portfolio was not of his choosing and saying “the recent reshuffle is not a reflection of our efforts or our achievements. We worked hard and the Prime Minister has paid tribute to that”. If these ministers did well, why did they have to change portfolios or get demoted from cabinet?
Ed Husic: It’s the Prime Minister’s prerogative to be able to assess how she wants to have the make-up of the team. She’s looked around and obviously as a result of Nick Sherry’s resignation we’ve had a reshuffle, an opportunity to change the positions of various ministers and as the Prime Minister indicated in the clip you ran a few moments ago, these are never easy conversations to have. But, you know, just like it happens out in the real world, people will change positions as a result of organisational change and it’s a similar sort of thing that’s happening here.
You have to make these decisions and as for some of the other ministers that are expressing their view, the media can’t always want candour and open comment from ministers and politicians and when they have it try and beat it up. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. So you’ve had ministers express their view that they wouldn’t have necessarily preferred to have the position that was taken, but as I said before, before, these decisions are taken and they’re getting on with the job just as Kim Carr said today it’s an honour for him to take his new position, and that’s what he’ll do.
Curtis: But Ed, has the Prime Minister risked creating a few disgruntled people as a result of the reshuffle?
Husic: I don’t think so, because people are big enough and professional enough to get on with the job that’s required of them and there will be people and, for example, in terms of Kim Carr’s position, he still maintains a position that he can keep a focus on something he’s been passionate about for years in terms of Australian manufacturing and he’ll keep doing that and I think people will get on.
Curtis: Scott [Ryan], on your side of politics, Tony Abbott has said he plans to take the ministry he’s got now to next election, is that likely to cause a few disgruntled people on your own side because you have a number of people on the backbench described often as the young Turks who may want a crack at a frontbench spot?
Senator Scott Ryan: There’s a real contrast here. On the Coalition side you’ve got more than a dozen people with former ministerial experience and stability. What we saw yesterday with the Prime Minister’s reshuffle, which Ed says is somehow due says is somehow due to Nick Sherry’s resignation, which wasn’t the case at all.
What this was was a reshuffle to promote the people who helped make her Prime Minister, because she’s scared they’ll otherwise start looking elsewhere.
Curtis: She’s promoted other people too, it’s not just promoting Bill Shorten into Cabinet and giving Mark Arbib other responsibilities. She promoted Tanya Plibersek and Mark Butler into cabinet, as well.
Senator Ryan: Mark Arbib has now got four or five jobs. He is Assistant Treasurer, he is Minister for Sport, because Laura Tingle said he wanted to go to the Olympics. In between that he is manager of Government Business in the Senate, chief factional head-kicker. His only experience with small business was turning the NSW ALP into a very small business and he is there because Julia Gillard wants to keep him on side. That’s why Bill Shorten and Mark Arbib have been promoted.
Curtis: What about those in your own ranks who may be chaffing at the bit to get a chance on the frontbench? Mid-term shuffles on either side are not a new thing.
Senator Ryan: Not at all. But the difference is, on the Coalition side you’ve got stability and experience, people with a proven track record government , a government that looks better every day this government every day this government is in office. On the Labor side, you have a Prime Minister who is rewarding the faceless men and the factional head kickers that made her Prime Minister. It’s a real contrast.
Curtis: Ed, the Prime Minister says wasn’t rewarding those who supported her. But it is blatantly obvious Bill Shorten and Mark Arbib, two men who were behind the push to get her into Prime Minister, have got better jobs as a result of this.
Husic: There are about a “bajillion” things that Scott said that I’d have a completely different view on and he’s out of line absolutely.
Mark Arbib’s appointment in terms of retaining sport, I deal with a few sporting organisations and certainly within those circles they were they were delighted that Mark Arbib retained his position as Minister for Sport. The continuity that’s been secured through that and the support that Mark has provided from the Australian Sports Commission through to other organisations has been critical and I think it’s fantastic that he’s retained that portfolio.
Tanya Plibersek, great performer in human services. Articulate, considered, intelligent now going another health portfolio, replacing a person who was a great friend of Western Sydney health and boosting infrastructure in my neck of the woods, Nicola Roxon, who’s following her passion and going into the Attorney-General’s spot.
Mark Butler, elevated into the nerve centre of decision making within government, taking mental health with him and, ensuring that area retains a focus. I think there’ve been great decisions on there.
On the other side of politics, the suggestion that all is rosy is a joke. Frankly, the position that the Opposition has got themselves is they’re now the butt of ridicule and parody.
You’ve had Antony Albanese describe the Coalition as the “no-alition”. Laurie Oakes described them as the “abominable no-man”. You can throw in whatever other descriptions you want, “chairman no and the no-botts”. They’ve now the no-botts. They’ve now put themselves in a position where they are now mimicked for their negativity, a one-trick pony that that can’t deliver and for them to suggest that everything is rosy on their camp when at the tail-end of the last parliamentary sittings it was evident that people on their side were getting sick and tired of the negativity and forcing Tony Abbott to put out a list of things he’s agreed to, defend himself against a charge of negativity shows they’ve got problems on their problems on their sides of the fence and they’re going to have to fix it.
Curtis: Scott, you wanted to respond?
Senator Ryan: Ed is living in a fantasy land. The Coalition has a stable team with ministerial experience. The Labor Party has had constant leadership machinations every day over the last two. You’ve got super portfolios being created and portfolios cobbled together. Look at Mark Arbib’s job, small business there Ed. We think small business is enough to have a minister in cabinet. The fact there’ve been 300,000 small business jobs lost since Labor came to office, you’ve given it to a man with three other jobs plus his factional head-kicking role. That’s not taking small business seriously.
Curtis: We’ll leave that issue there and move on. Former Prime Minister John Howard has launched a book by Professor Ian Plimer which poses questions for students to challenge their teachers on climate change. He says there’s a persistent attempt to silent dissent, a change in stance some might think from 2007.
<Clip of John Howard>
Curtis: Scott, do you think this shows that John Howard has changed his view from 2007 when he was willing to put forward an emissions trading scheme to as he said, tackle the climate change challenge?
Senator Ryan: Oh look, you’ll have to ask John Howard about his views. The Coalition policy was to act in concert with the rest of the world. The rest of the world is not the world is not acting. Labor’s insisted on breaking its promise about there being no carbon tax and is having the biggest, largest carbon tax of anyone in the world. As to Ian Plimer’s book, I have a copy and I don’t think anyone that has an interest in debate has an interest in shutting down debate. The only people who are scared of debate are those who don’t want their ideas challenged.
Curtis: Ed, anything wrong with asking questions about a scientific view?
Husic: Absolutely not. I think we do need to have a debate that’s based on fact and we do need to be able to rely on evidence as a way of being able to progress public policy. I have no disagreement with that. In actual fact, I agree with some of the sentiments expressed by Scott a few moments ago.
I think you can have the different viewpoints put forward and have those arguments advanced, but ultimately it’s got to come down to fact and that’s why we’ve had the Climate Commission talk about, for example, in the release of its report The Critical Decade,. what the impacts of global warming and climate change would have on Australia and what is required to move on it.
Now John Howard as prime minister briefed by people who take, will study fact and evidence, put forward policy, he was briefed by people that said Australia needed to act. He understood the need to act and that’s why you’ve had the position as you’ve played earlier where John Howard back in 2007 understood the need to act.
I don’t know if he’s been drinking from a dodgy tea cup, but if he wants to argue now that people – and I have to say, I take great … I just think it’s bad form in terms of the arguments that he advanced a few moments ago in terms of the claims about linking-in deniers to the Holocaust. I think that is a terrible period in human history that while it’s important to be remembered shouldn’t be linked into shouldn’t be linked into other debate. I think it’s distasteful to what’s gone on previously.
If he’s got an issue with people being criticised for having a different view, by all means air it, but wandering down that path the way that he did is not helpful whatsoever, it should be left along and it is beneath our former prime minister to do so.
Senator Ryan: Ed to be fair, I think the former prime minister was criticising the use of the term denier, he wasn’t criticising those who had a different opinion. He was specifically criticising the language being used by some of the proponents of a particular view that used the term denier, and I personally think the use of that term is appalling and I agree with what the former prime minister said in that regard.
Husic: I was going to make the point in response to Scott, I get where you’re coming from Scott, but from my point of view, I think people are obviously reaching for a handle in terms of describing those who are opposed to the notion that the climate’s changing and I think that we should always be mindful of words, but I don’t think, I don’t agree think, I don’t agree with what the former prime minister Howard said back then and I understand you have a different view.
Curtis: That’s where we’ll have to leave it, Ed Husic, Scott Ryan thank you very much for your time.