DAVID LIPSON
First to you Stephen Jones, are you satisfied with what has come out of caucus today?
STEPHEN JONES
We had a very passionate discussion and I think it would be fair to say there are no moral absolutes in this discussion. I’d say the same thing to Bob Brown who seems to think there are. What we’re all trying to do is ensure we have an orderly refugee program in Australia and that we don’t give priority to people who can afford to come here by boat or plane over those who might be sitting for ten or twenty years otherwise in refugee camps in Indonesia and Malaysia.
DAVID LIPSON
Were you one of those in caucus that argued against this policy?
STEPHEN JONES
I’ve never adopted the principle that you kiss and tell – what goes in the caucus room stays in the caucus room. What I can tell you is that we had a very passionate debate with a lot of good points made on all sides. After having had that debate we’ve arrived at a decision, the decision is announced by the Prime Minister today, we will move into the parliament, legislation which puts the government in the same position as it thought it was in three weeks ago before the High Court decision.
DAVID LIPSON
You’ve warned publicly and fairly sternly as well in the past that any policy the government comes up with must be consistent with international human rights obligations. Are you satisfied that this policy meets those obligations?
STEPHEN JONES
And I don’t step away from that and neither do any of my colleagues. What we do, in relation to Malaysia and anywhere else, whether it is onshore or offshore, must be consistent with our international human rights obligations. As we go through the process of looking through the detail of the legislation that will be in the forefront of our minds.
DAVID LIPSON
Do you think there has been a lurch to the right?
STEPHEN JONES
I don’t think that this issue can be neatly slotted as a left or right issue. People of good will can disagree. What we are committed to doing as a Labor party is ensuring that we have an orderly program of refugee intake. I’d actually like to see us increase the number of refugees that we take into this country, because I think we can and I think we should. But in doing that, you’d expect a Labor government to say we shouldn’t be giving priorities to people who can afford to get here by one means, over people who can’t afford to and may otherwise be languishing in a refugee camp somewhere in our region for ten or twenty years.
STEPHEN JONES
Senator Scott Ryan have you had a chance to speak to your leader? Do you think the opposition will support this plan?
SCOTT RYAN
To be honest I came straight from watching the Prime Minister’s press conference up to here to do this program. I think we need to see the legislation. In this area the devil is always in the detail, and particularly with this government. They haven’t released the legal advice for the first Malaysian solution they’ve only released the legal advice since the High Court decision. So we need to see the legislation before we make a decision.
DAVID LIPSON
Julia Gillard said this is a big test for Tony Abbott and he should accept this legislation because not to would deny himself the legislative cornerstone for what he would want if he became Prime Minister. Do you agree with that?
SCOTT RYAN
Well first of all there’s no legal consensus at all about what the High Court decision means for Nauru. Nauru occurred for many years. The Prime Minister – if she was serious would actually not be going out and doing a press conference and trying to announce with the gun at the head of the parliament ‘this is how we’re going to go, we’re not going enter into any discussions’. So the Prime Minister’s attempt to contrive a solution here, out of a policy disaster, is not going to be taken seriously by the Australian people.
DAVID LIPSON
And what about the opposition though? That’s what the key is – will it be taken seriously by the opposition? Will they work with the government?
SCOTT RYAN
We’ve always taken this issue seriously. In fact, for a government that for three years said pull factors weren’t important and would dismiss any criticism of their policy about making Australia a more attractive place for people smugglers – we’ve consistently said the only way to provide a disincentive to people smugglers and unlawful arrivals is Nauru, where we can guarantee the safety and security of people, and Temporary Protection Visas, as well as turning back the boats where possible.
STEPHEN JONES
Scott there is a very good reason why Nauru won’t work, and you and I both know what that reason is. Over 90% of the people who went to Nauru ended up back in Australia, at very high cost over $500,000 per head, for persons who are detained on Nauru. Now if you and I know that, if you and I know that over 90% of people who went to Nauru ended up in Australia, as admitted refugees, then I think the people smugglers know that as well and it won’t be a deterrent. If deterrence is your objective, we know that Nauru won’t work, because they know ‘yes, you might have to go to a horrible place, and you might have to stay there for a few years, but you will end up in Australia’. Now if you are trying to put in place a mechanism which deters people from getting out on boats in the first place, that ain’t going to work.
SCOTT RYAN
Well, Stephen, the truth is, what we know about Nauru is that it did work. We had zero boats in 2005, and what Nauru did, much more inexpensively than the government’s failure on this, for less than $300 million over six years of its operation, we actually got down to having zero boats arrive in one year. Since Labor’s changed the law, since Labor weakened our border protection mechanisms, spending has blown out to over $1 billion a year. Since the announcement of the Malaysian deal, since its announcement alone, there have been 1,000 arrivals and since the signature of the deal, there have been four hundred arrivals.
DAVID LIPSON
Scott Ryan, do you accept the advice from Immigration officials that Nauru would not be as effective as it was before, because the game has essentially changed?
SCOTT RYAN
The opposition has always said we need a suite of measures. Nauru is but one issue, and offshore processing is an important part of it. What has also been important is Temporary Protection Visas and the knowledge that we will turn back the boats.
STEPHEN JONES
Can I suggest that simple slogans are not going to cut the mustard here? If we are going to have a realistic suite of policies, you’re right, there is not a silver bullet, but we’ve got to do a range of things, and they all should be consistent with our international human rights obligations. We need to be taking more refugees, so that we aren’t having people facing the situation where they are living in over-crowded camps and having no hope of getting here inside ten or twenty years so we need to be doing that. We need to cooperate with our regional neighbours because there are 10,000, sorry, close to 100,000 people in Malaysia, around the same number of people in Indonesia and in Thailand and all other countries around our region. We take 14,000 a year, now, if we’re going to get a solution, we’re going to have to work with our neighbours, consistent with our international human rights obligations and yes, and offshore processing arrangement in Malaysia which doesn’t give priority to people who can afford to get on boats over those who are in camps is part of that solution.
DAVID LIPSON
What about Nauru as a possible way at least to get this through Parliament to reach a common ground?
STEPHEN JONES
The reason, if you’re going to do this, if you’re going to go through all the heart ache of doing this on the assumption that you need a deterrent as a part of your policy, then what we know is people smugglers are just their mechanisms and they know that Nauru is perhaps a long way to get to Australia but you will get here eventually. They know that. So they will not see that as a deterrent, because all the advice is that criminal gangs that run these operations are just their mechanisms to suit the changes in place at the time. It may have worked, but it won’t work now.
DAVID LIPSON
Well the Nelson Poll out this morning – one of the things it found is that 54% of Australians actually believe according to this poll, that processing should happen onshore. So, are we going the wrong direction with offshore processing, Scott Ryan?
SCOTT RYAN
Those answers depend on how one asked the questions. And just as we don’t live by the polls in other issues, I think on specific individual policy issues it’s best to take a more considered view. I think that the Australian people want above anything else, control over the immigration policy that we have. We’ve got a proud record of accepting refugees and resettlement programs, but the price for that is that we actually choose where people come from.
DAVID LIPSON
Stephen Jones?
STEPHEN JONES
No disagreement. We need to have an orderly process and if a part of that process is going to include a deterrent, we know that Nauru is not going to work, so lets sit down and based on the evidence work on a policy that will work, in cooperation with our regional neighbours.
SCOTT RYAN
We’ve got a supposition from Labor that Nauru doesn’t work, yet the facts show it did. There is only one reason, why the Labor party are refusing to countenance Nauru, and that is pride. Their hubris refuses to accept that over the years where they changed this, they got it wrong. They now concede pull factors are appropriate, they now concede that offshore processing is appropriate – yet they will not concede, and the Prime Minister would sit next to the President of Nauru last week, and she wouldn’t speak to him. This is pride and nothing less.
Commercial break
DAVID LIPSON
Stephen Jones, has anyone, or have you had any discussions with anyone, in the Labor party about Kevin Rudd returning to the Prime Ministership at some point in the future before the next election?
STEPHEN JONES
First, great to have Kevin back. He’s had a major operation and he’s been recuperating – but he’s been doing it in a very ‘Kevin sort of way’ working flat out, while in his hospital room and back at home recuperating. Look, Kevin is an important part of our team, and he’s doing a great job in the Foreign Affairs portfolio. But I can tell you everyone within the caucus is one hundred per cent focused on the important pieces of legislation before the parliament – our Clean Energy Future legislation and the Minerals Resources Rent Tax. That’s what the energies are focused on.
DAVID LIPSON
You say one hundred per cent focused, but there are quite a few quotes that are popping up in newspapers and the like – Kevin Rudd backers saying ‘well, lets think about it, perhaps its not a bad idea’, so I ask again, has anyone spoken to you about a possible shift?
STEPHEN JONES
You guys have really got to get out more. I know the press gallery journalists love to talk amongst themselves and all of a sudden if three people say the same thing its truth. But the fact of the matter is people aren’t talking about it.
DAVID LIPSON
We learnt the hard way a year ago when that was the line being said, that no one was talking about it and there was a leadership change, without any notice – so in our defence I suppose that would be it.
STEPHEN JONES
I can tell you the things people would be talking about – the Clean Energy Fund legislation, how we’re going to handle the asylum seekers debate, and how we are going to get the Minerals Resources Rent Tax through and in my own electorate, the issue has got to be jobs, the future of manufacturing and the steel industry – that’s what people are talking about, not leadership speculation.
STEPHEN JONES
Scott Ryan, who would the Coalition prefer to go to the next election against – Kevin Rudd or Julia Gillard?
SCOTT RYAN
We don’t think about that. We think about what we can do, we think about what we need to do, we think about what we are doing. The leader is not Labor’s problem, leadership and their policies are. Stephen mentioned the Clean Energy Future, because he doesn’t want to talk about the broken Carbon Tax promise. We’ve seen a complete break down over the last three years since Labor’s changes of the issue we just discussed, on border protection with ten thousand people arriving, a thousand people since they announced their Malaysia deal. Stephen and many, many others – I don’t know if you said it, actually said the same thing about their support for Kevin Rudd I’m sure in June last year. So it’s right to be wary.
DAVID LIPSON
Well the government has now denied reports in the Australia newspaper this morning, that the government was planning on raiding if you like the Future Fund in the future. The words from the Finance Minister Penny Wong this morning were ‘that any funds raised from the sale of non-financial assets will be kept by the Future Fund, not by the government’. This means that the government cannot spend these funds. Let’s just have a listen to what the Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey had to say on the way to Parliament this morning
FOOTAGE – JOE HOCKEY
Wayne Swan has been caught out, putting his hands into the pockets of everyday Australians, by for the first time, raiding the Future Fund. It shows the fiscal desperateness of this government. It illustrates the fact they can’t control their own spending.
DAVID LIPSON
This is all pretty complex stuff the claims as to how the fund was allegedly being raided. Stephen Jones what do you say to this, is the government dipping into the pocket here?
STEPHEN JONES
What I say to Joe Hockey is he’d be better served looking at a way to fill in the seventy billion dollar black hole in his own budget proposal and maybe getting some lessons in how to read the budget papers because he’s just wrong. Let’s have a look at the Future Fund. Set up by the former government, a whole heap of the Telstra shares, in fact the majority of the Telstra shares then owned by the government went into the future fund. Over time the fund is doing the right thing by changing the balance of its asset classes – they sell some assets, convert them to cash or into other assets and all of that money is retained by the fund. Nothing new is going on. Joe Hockey has just stuffed it up, he’d be better served getting a lesson in how to read the Budget papers – one hundred per cent of the money that is made from the sale of any assets goes back into the future fund and that is exactly what is going on.
SCOTT RYAN
David this answer came from the Department of Finance, the public servants. When they were asked by Senator Corman, the $4.6 billion that hits their budget coincidently in the year they have a $3.5 billion surplus – part of it comes from what has been described as the sale of non-financial assets from the future fund. So whether you call it a withdrawal – I don’t know if they’re going to start calling it a disbursement or something else, but Senator Wong could have explained this at Budget Estimates when there were hours to do so. She tried to shut down the debate, and the Department of Finance has answered this question today. I’m sure it will be pursued. But Australians are right to be wary about Labor raiding this Fund in a desperate attempt to try and meet a promise about a surplus.
DAVID LIPSON
Well the other big issue of the week of course this week is the Carbon Tax – the legislation is going to be brought into Parliament tomorrow, debate expected to start on Wednesday. A very significant piece of legislation for both sides. In fact, really you could say both sides have pinned their attack on it. Stephen Jones do you expect a pretty swift passage through Parliament?
STEPHEN JONES
I expect Parliament to have a robust debate on an incredibly important piece of legislation, but within that package of legislation there is a critical piece of legislation on the steel transformation plant – $300 million which means a hell of lot to my electorate in the Illawarra, with Bluescope and other manufacturers down there. We are asking the Coalition to back that legislation to ensure that we are able to do what we can to assist the steel industry which is going through a very difficult time at the moment. It means a lot to thousands of Bluescope workers in my electorate and Scott – your party should get on board.
SCOTT RYAN
Well you shouldn’t have introduced the tax and then you wouldn’t have to have the compensation. The test for this package David is simple, is it going to be subject to the same amount of scrutiny that the GST was that had half a dozen different enquiries and ongoing sustained debate, not being rammed through the lower and upper houses with a sham joint standing enquiry, at the behest of Labor and Bob Brown.
DAVID LIPSON
Well Scott Ryan, Stephen Jones, thanks very much for your insight today on Lunchtime Agenda, and good luck with the rest of the busy week.
Ends.