Topics: Royal Commission into child sexual abuse, proposed changes to discrimination laws, GST
Laura Jayes: Hello and welcome to Lunchtime Agenda, I’m Laura Jayes. We are getting down to the business end of the parliamentary year. The Senate is sitting this week and next week, the House of Representatives will be back for the final sitting week. Today on my panel we will be looking at the politics of the day and the week with Liberal senator Scott Ryan and Labor senator Lisa Singh.
Today, Tony Abbott is in Perth, again addressing the cost of living issues and again he has visited a small business. Julia Gillard, meanwhile, is in Cambodia, at another world leaders’ summit, this time at the ASEAN Summit in Cambodia. Now trade is high on the agenda at this summit, but as David Lipson reports, as Julia Gillard prepares to meet with the Chinese Premier Wen, tensions over the South China Sea are threatening to overshadow this meeting. This is a report filed by David Lipson just a short time ago.
<CLIP>
Jayes: Now to get to the domestic politics of today and this week, Liberal senator Scott Ryan and Labor senator Lisa Singh, thanks so much for joining us.
Scott Ryan, first to you. It has been a week since the Royal Commission into child sex abuse was announced. It seems to me that the states and the Federal Government need to see eye-to-eye here on almost every issue. What will you be saying to those conservative state premiers?
Senator Scott Ryan: Our view has been, and my view personally has been, this is an important Royal Commission. It’s a national Royal Commission for a very good reason, so that the national government can take a very good look at everything that’s been happening in Australia. We put out a statement supporting the calling of the commission before the Prime Minister had decided to do so. We welcome it, we think that it will be a very important way to look at what happened in the past and also to make sure it doesn’t happen again in the future. The national government is in a position to do this and I think really, it is a matter for national leadership.
Jayes: But there needs to be, of course, some kind of consultation before this can really get underway and if there’s going to be any concrete policy changes in the future there needs to be a lot of agreement here: compensation, what laws can be changed, would you agree?
Senator Ryan: Well, this happened, as you said, a couple of weeks ago. A consultation paper has just come out, there is only a week to comment on that. This we need to get right, so let’s not jump the gun on what needs to be done at this early stage. We believe we should give the Government time to come up with its draft terms of reference, but the national government can look into anything it sees fits on this issue and only the national government can take that perspective, so let’s give them the time to come up with what they want as their terms of reference in this process.
Jayes: Lisa Singh, this is a bipartisan approach with this in broad terms. But Nicola Roxon today has, I guess, moved to manage expectations a bit here about what victims can seek to get out of this Royal Commission. What would you be saying to any victims in your community who might be looking to this Royal Commission to get some kind of closure or compensation, or the like?
Senator Lisa Singh: Firstly, my heart goes out to all of those victims for their courage in those who have come forward. What I’d say to them is that the Prime Minister, in her act of leadership, in her act of national leadership in calling for a Royal Commission into this, is there with them in taking that decisive action to ensure we do get that closure. Now it is going to be a long period, any Royal Commission does have a warts and all approach of course, and we do want to get it right, as Scott has said, and that’s why we need to work with the states to give them some time to ensure that their current inquiries into child abuse are dealt with as well. But what we have now on the table is something that has been overdue. It’s got a groundswell of support in the community. The majority of Australians want this to happen and through that, eventually, hopefully, we will have closure.
Jayes: I did mention this expectation management. Nicola Roxon, the Attorney- General gave a media conference here at Parliament House a short time ago and she said that compensation won’t be the key aspect of this Royal Commission, take a look.
<CLIP>
Jayes: Scott Ryan, there’s got to be a big concern here that the level of compensation, if there is this groundswell of people looking to be compensated financially, is going to cost either the states or Federal Government a lot of money.
Senator Ryan: I don’t want to jump the gun on this. We’ve seen the consultation paper, there’s a week to respond – hopefully the Government will allow those who want a little bit more time to put some time into it – and then we will probably see draft terms of reference. All I’ll say is that as the Opposition, we indicated our support for this and we’re now waiting for the Government to show us the draft terms of reference and to express this in a truly bipartisan fashion, I think some of those discussions need to happen out of the glare of the public spotlight.
Jayes: Lisa Singh, I also wanted to talk about the issue of not everyone being able to tell their story at a Royal Commission, I know the terms of reference are still to be worked out. I guess you accept that not everyone will be able to tell their story, but how does the Government decide in this case, do you think? Do they choose some of the more high profile issues, how do you think this should go?
Senator Singh: Well this is where the Royal Commission will have their work cut out for them. As a Government, we will be looking at the recommendations that the Royal Commission puts forward, they really will have involvement in this, in ensuring that they are being as open and concrete in their recommendations as they can be. I think we need look at the big picture here, and that is the fact that we are actually embarking on doing this, something that has really needed to be done for some time. It is above politics, it is about the future of this country, it is about our children, it is about their safety, it is about looking at the fact that there have been circumstances, in the past, where their safety has been in jeopardy and we don’t want that to happen in the future. We want closure, in that respect, in the future for that and we’ll be looking at the Royal Commission’s recommendations to make that happen.
Jayes: I also wanted to look at the draft proposal to change discrimination laws, and this is really consolidating five laws into one here. Now Nicola Roxon has framed it as a simplification process, but is there a risk of oversimplifying, do you think?
Senator Singh: Not at all. This is a really, really needed thing. A good example, which the Attorney- General Nicola Roxon gave, was an African woman, for example. If she is discriminated she has to put in a separate complaint on the grounds of her gender and another complaint on the grounds of her race. At the moment this is all handled by some five different pieces of legislation, it is quite cumbersome for her in that respect. This means she will be able to put in a single application on the grounds of the areas that she has been discriminated so that yes, it is easier for her to file that complaint and for her to be dealt with at the other end as well. I think it is a win for both employers or business and those that have been discriminated. It deals with it in a much more one-stop approach, as opposed to all of these different areas of legislation for discrimination.
Jayes: I will take you just to a quick comment now. George Brandis, the Shadow Attorney-General, had some concerns about the reverse onus-of-proof. This is what he had to say this morning.
<CLIP>
Jayes: Now Lisa Singh I will let you respond to that in a moment. Scott Ryan, this reverse onus-of-proof, Nicola Roxon has since sought to qualify saying it is more of a tinkering, not a complete reverse. So is this something the Coalition is going to support?
Senator Ryan: This is an exposure draft we’ve seen so let’s not pre-empt our decision, I’ve only had a very brief chance to look at this. Reversing the onus-of-proof is not just tinkering, let’s just go to what this bill does. It doesn’t just roll all five current anti-discrimination acts into one, it does dramatically expand the grounds for which discrimination can be claimed. So that’s the first point. Secondly, the onus-of-proof, and effectively being innocent until proven guilty, the burden being on the accuser to prove their accusation, is a pretty basic element of a western liberal democracy. We are not convinced that this should be reversed. I have a real issue with potentially dragging a small business person in and them having to establish they didn’t do something they are accused of. The burden really should be on the accuser. We have the Racial Discrimination Act and other acts in Australia that are really iconic parts of our law and they are supported by a true national consensus. I would not want that to be put in danger by something that would actually make this a partisan issue and potentially reversing the onus-of-proof is one of those issues.
Jayes: Lisa Singh, I also wanted to talk to you about the fact that the definition of discrimination would be changed to unfavourable treatment. How do you classify or prove unfavourable treatment?
Senator Singh: Scott has made it fairly clear, at this point in time at least, that the Opposition don’t seem supportive of this legislation, which is a shame because it is doing so much more than what we currently have in that it is helping people bring those cases forward to be dealt with.
Jayes: It seems very broad though, unfavourable treatment.
Senator Singh: We took to the last election that we would ensure that sexuality and gender were included as grounds of discrimination, so as part of this review process, all areas of discrimination have been considered. That will be worked through, I think the NGO sector, the community sector, business and the like have got time to respond to the current proposals that have been put forward and through that, I think some of these issues of types of discrimination will be fleshed out in more detail.
Jayes: You can’t see an issue, as George Brandis raised, that it will prompt more people to lodge cases and effectively clog up the courts?
Senator Singh: What will prompt more people to lodge cases is if they are being discriminated more. If anyone is discriminated in the workplace they have the right to bring that forward. As the A-G has said, there is some tinkering in relation to that, but making this kind of furphy – it is just a furphy to say we are going to have all these incredible increases in discrimination. Discrimination needs to be dealt with in the workplace, and anyone who defies that is just beyond logic, quite frankly.
Senator Ryan: We’ve said we are not yet convinced, but this also includes your past as an industrial officer as a grounds for discrimination. So whether or not you took part in or organised a strike, it’s not just about the things that Lisa mentioned there – sexual and gender identity – it is quite a substantial expansion. But the reversal of the onus-of-proof is not a tinkering, it is a fundamental change to anti-discrimination law.
Jayes: I’ll leave the panel here and we’ll go to a quick break and be back with some other political debates that are going on at the moment.
<BREAK>
Jayes: Welcome back to Lunchtime Agenda. Today on the panel we’ve been discussing a number of issues, but again the issue of the GST has reared its ugly head. This has been dismissed by both sides of politics, both Tony Abbott and Julia Gillard, and Tony Abbott was again repeating it today.
<CLIP>
Jayes: Julia Gillard has been just as unequivocal on this. Scott Ryan, why can’t we even have the conversation about either lifting the tax or broadening its base? Debate, even conversation on this, has been completely shut down, why?
Senator Ryan: Why is it, that when the Government needs more money it doesn’t do what you and I have to do …
Jayes: It has been shut down by both sides of politics. You’ve got promises that you still need to fund.
Senator Ryan: The GST goes to the states Laura. The Government seems to think, and the people who want more government spending, seem to say, ‘well the Government needs more money, let’s increase taxes’. You and I, if we want to spend on something new, households around Australia reprioritise their spending. I don’t like the idea that just because the Government’s run out of money and borrowed up to our national debt limit, that all of a sudden it gets to increase tax.
Jayes: But as you just pointed out, this money goes to the states. It still needs to, as I understand it, go through Federal Parliament. It is something that Barry O’Farrell has raised, why not even have the conversation?
Senator Ryan: We will not increase the tax burden on Australian people because we actually believe we should be taking away the new taxes Labor has added. People are feeling the cost of living pressure, putting up the GST will only make that worse. What you’ve heard from Tony is an explicit commitment that we will not be doing that. With all due respect to the Prime Minister, if she says there will be no increase to the GST under the Government I lead, I think people all around Australia know what that means.
Jayes: All the states need to be on board with this for anything to change. Lisa Singh, this is something that’s been raised by the independents – Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott. And as Tony Abbott pointed out today, if Rob Oakeshott wants to go out and campaign in his electorate for an increase in the GST, he is welcome to do so. Doesn’t that highlight how politically sensitive it is, it is a political move not to talk about raising the GST, rather than an economically sensible one, would you agree with that?
Senator Singh: I think it is for the Opposition and that’s because they’re all over the place when it comes to the GST. They’ve had Joe Hockey go out and talk to the state premiers about the need to lift the GST rate, to have that conversation with them.
Jayes: What’s wrong with having the conversation?
Senator Singh: They can have the conversation but they need to be upfront and clear about it. Tony Abbott’s coming out today and saying ‘no we’re not having the conversation’. They can have that conversation, but they certainly don’t want to. We have made it very clear for a long time that we won’t be lifting the GST. We’ve got a lot of other economic reform going on in this country. We’ve got a lot of support for families, for pensioners and the like. We’ve got a very low tax rate, much lower than under Howard, we’ve got low interest rates, a really strong economy, we don’t need to lift the GST. When it comes though to Tony Abbott, his unfunded scarce number of policies – the ones that are there are unfunded. We know there is a $70 billion black hole. We know they’re struggling to work out how in fact they are going to fund any policies that they put forward in the future, including yesterday, talking about childcare and the need to go to the Productivity Commission and ask them what kind of childcare policy they should have, but saying at the same time they will fund it out of existing revenue, that they won’t be calling on any extra funds.
Jayes: Scott Ryan, I didn’t ask you about childcare, looking at it, taking it to the Productivity Commission, but in the same breath, Tony Abbott has ruled out broadening the funding envelope. Does that mean that rebates are going to have to be redirected and benefits looked at to pay for even this nanny idea, this home care idea?
Senator Ryan: What we’ve said is that childcare clearly doesn’t fit the needs of many young families and it particularly has an impact on women re-entering the workforce. We’re going through it ourselves in my own family. It’s very hard to get a place, it is very hard to get the care you need at the time you need, particularly outside our major centres. It is actually projected to grow, but the question is how we spend that money to deliver the most affective childcare. The Productivity Commission is in an ideal position to do that.
But I just have to briefly address a couple of things Lisa alleged. The Financial Review has outlined $130 billion in unfunded promises from Labor, no money for the NDIS, no money for Gonski. And when it comes to the Coalition’s record on promising and delivering taxes, the Coalition’s record is unequalled. It wasn’t the Coalition that, because of one person in the House of Representatives and Julia Gillard’s desire to keep her job, introduced a carbon tax. Every Australian should be worried because when the independents demand tax increases, this Government’s got a record of jumping.
Jayes: Lisa.
Senator Singh: Scott, you’re like a bit of a stuck record I have to say.
Senator Ryan: The truth is like that.
Senator Singh: When the conversation on the economy isn’t going the Opposition’s way, you tend to revert back to type, and that is, ‘we’ll go back to the carbon tax argument’. We’ve all passed on from that. The 1st of July has been and gone.
Senator Ryan: You broke a promise.
Senator Singh: The economy is continuing to do really, really well and everyone is just going, ‘what was the Opposition on about?’
Senator Ryan: How many voters did you tell you will never introduce a carbon tax?
Jayes: Can we just get back to this childcare issue. I want to ask both of you for a quick response. Is there a case, when it comes to funding childcare, for redirecting the baby bonus into this area? Lisa?
Senator Singh: It’s the Opposition that has an issue on how they’re going to fund their particular …
Jayes: Is there a case for doing this?
Senator Singh: I don’t think there needs to be a case right now for doing that. We’ve looked at the baby bonus in recent times through the MYEFO and we’ve looked at a reduction in that, and that is because of course, we’ve got so much more going on for families now, than under Howard. We’ve got a paid parental leave scheme, which is a fantastic thing.
Jayes: Scott Ryan, could you …
Senator Ryan: Well Labor redirected the baby bonus to their budget deficit. We’ve said this needs to be looked at in a whole-of-government setting by the Productivity Commission. How are we assisting women and young families, but particularly women who want to re-enter the workforce? And is childcare meeting their needs? Clearly not at the moment. Let’s not pre-empt the good work that the Productivity Commission is capable of doing. I don’t know why Labor doesn’t actually agree with this policy, you’ve agreed with some others.
Jayes: Quickly, I want to look at Malcolm Turnbull and Kevin Rudd sharing the spotlight last night. Take a look.
<CLIP>
Jayes: Scott Ryan, is Malcolm Turnbull being a team player?
Senator Ryan: As Malcolm said last night, he looks forward to playing a role in a Tony Abbott cabinet of a Coalition government, if the people decide to entrust us with government at the next election.
Jayes: Lisa Singh, when Kevin Rudd was asked about this last night, he wasn’t perhaps, being as much of a team player as Malcolm Turnbull was.
Senator Singh: I didn’t see Q and A but from the discussions I’ve had I understand that it was a bit of a battle of ideas. That’s a really good thing and that’s what we want to see in politics, more of that battle of ideas. It would be great to have more of that from Scott and the Opposition in fact.
Jayes: I will let you two get to Senate Question Time, that is it for Lunchtime Agenda today.