E&OE…
Chris Hammer
Joining us now is Liberal Senator for Victoria, Scott Ryan. Good morning Senator.
Scott Ryan
Morning, Chris.
Hammer
There seems to be cross-party support for a referendum to amend the Constitution to recognise indigenous people. When do you think such a referendum should take place?
Ryan
Well I think that, as the Prime Minister has made clear, that this is the first step in a long process and that the Prime minister has indicated that he would like to lay out a timetable so work can start on the specific proposal to be put forward to the Australian people. It is trite to say, somewhat, that the history of referenda in Australia is not one of success; only eight out of 44 have been successful. So a lot of work does need to go into such a proposal to generate the public consensus necessary to achieve the level of support the Prime Minister’s outlined, where it becomes a moment of national unity.
Hammer
So, I mean some people have said it should definitely be held before the next election, that momentum has been built. Do those arguments convince you or is it more important to get the timing absolutely right?
Ryan
I don’t think artificial deadlines are imposed that necessarily meet the criteria for success that the Prime Minister has outlined. Referenda are difficult to generate public support for. Now the record in Australia, I don’t say in a negative way, because a lot of the proposals, by definition, they haven’t been supported by the public because they’ve failed. So working along a detailed process to generate a consensus is the only way to achieve that moment of national unity.
Hammer
Typically referendums in the past have been held in conjunction with federal elections, I guess because to hold them independently is an expensive exercise and the Budget is under pressure. But do you see some merit in having a separate referendum where people actually go to the polling booth simply to vote? Which I assume would be the case if it were to be held in 2017.
Ryan
Well the last two referenda Chris, in 1988 and 1999 – the four proposals put up by Lionel Bowen and Bob Hawke and then the republic referenda and the preamble proposal put forward in 1999 – both of those occurred on non-election days as separate events. So I don’t think there’s any hard and fast formula about whether they should or shouldn’t be put up on a particular day.
Hammer
So do you have any particular preference for a date yourself?
Ryan
Oh look, not really at all. As I said I don’t think artificial deadlines, before the next election for example, necessarily are productive. The Prime Minister wants to outline a timetable, because then the truly challenging work is actually developing the specific proposal and generating consensus around that. And as we’ve seen from news reports this week there’s still a bit of work to be done on that, and the Prime Minister has made clear that he would like to make sure we do that work before any proposal is put.
Hammer
There is something of a debate emerging about what should be included in a referendum question. I guess in simple terms it can be divided into kind of a minimalist model which simply recognises indigenous people, and then a more ambitious model that might do things such as put in the Constitution outlaw racial discrimination. Now what are your thoughts on that? Should we be aiming more for a minimalist model or should we be more ambitious?
Ryan
Well I don’t think such terms help the debate.
Hammer
How would you phrase it then?
Ryan
I think this debate started out as a debate about the recognition of the fact that indigenous people were here before British settlement in Australia, and recognition of that history. Now different people have put forward different proposals how to deal with that, but it hasn’t really been a debate about what I’d call wholesale constitutional reform. So if there was a proposal to step beyond that debate of indigenous recognition, then I think that becomes a little bit of a different debate. And while I know some people have put forward arguments or put forward their views to try and use this as a platform for further reform, I don’t know if that will necessarily help the case of the important issue, or the core issue as proposed, which is that of indigenous recognition.
Hammer
So your position would be as supporting, I know the terms are sort of catch-all, but a minimalist type of referendum question? Not putting down any other sort of proposals, but it should be one step at a time, it should be achievable?
Ryan
Well I don’t think more radical proposals, or some of the ideas we’ve even seen this week, are, given the history of referenda in Australia, have a great prospect of achieving wide public support.
Hammer
And if they were to gain public support, would you see any danger in having such measures actually written into the constitution?
Ryan
Personally, I wouldn’t be in favour of some of the proposals I’ve read about this week. But this is a process where, as the Prime Minister has outlined, he wants to set out a timetable to be able to work up to a specific proposal that has wide consensus. But I don’t think some of those proposals, that people floated earlier this week, would have wide support amongst the Australian public.
Hammer
Then what is the concern there? Is it that the High Court would be almost duty-bound to involve itself in political debate and the decisions of government?
Ryan
Well there are a number of issues, I think it’s fair to say that if people want to have a debate about whether there should be a greater role for the judiciary in striking down laws, for example, or making determinations about the validity of laws on grounds, for example, like racial discrimination then I think that’s a separate debate. I don’t think that’s a debate that necessarily will help with the debate around indigenous recognition, which still has some time to run and still has some work to be done as the committee led by John Anderson has outlined. So I don’t think conflating the two issues, about whether people want wider constitutional reform – and I’m a bit of a sceptic in that regard, I don’t think it helps the debate around indigenous recognition.
Hammer
Senator, if we could move on to the deployment of Australian military personnel to Iraq and the fight against ISIL. It’s been depicted by the Prime Minister as primarily a humanitarian mission. I notice that earlier today the US Secretary of Defence, Chuck Hagel, as referring to it as a war, a war on ISIL. Does it really matter what we call this mission or is it important?
Ryan
I’m not fussed, personally, by nomenclature surrounding this issue. I think, as the Prime Minister has outlined, any military operation involves risk to the personnel that Australia deploys. But we have a focus on this; that is to ensure that the humanitarian abuses and tragedies that ISIL are causing in parts of Iraq are that military intervention is necessary to stop those. And so at the request of the Iraq government through the United States, we are joining and sending our forces to assist with that.
Hammer
Now I notice that the top US general, Martin Dempsey, has said that US military advisers in Iraq could take on possibly a combat role in the future if the situation changes there. That raises the whole question of so called mission-creep. Does the Australian Government need to be very clear up front of what the limits on our military advisers are?
Ryan
Well I think from the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister and the Defence Minister we’ve actually seen that clarity over the last several weeks as they have outlined to the Australian people the nature of the threat, the threat to Australia in particular with the number of Australians fighting over there, and also our commitment to this humanitarian cause. So I think that we have seen exactly that clarity, and as the Prime Minister outlined we are sending forces there, we are sending planes and support aircraft, and we are sending special forces but they are not going to be in a direct combat role.
Hammer
And there’s no room to move there? I mean they are special forces; they will be armed as the Prime Minister says. I mean can we rule out combat absolutely?
Ryan
I think this is a point where we don’t want to get ahead of ourselves. We’ve seen the Prime Minister on a daily basis outline both the situation and the threat to Australia, as well as the Australian commitment now. So let’s actually see how the situation develops as we deploy our forces.
Hammer
Now there’s been a great deal of bipartisanship on this issue of Iraq and ISIL, but the Opposition Leader Bill Shorten has suggested that we increase our refugee intake; particularly to take more people from Iraq and Syria. What do you think of that proposal?
Ryan
Well in effect, since the Government has been able to stop the illegal boats, we’ve actually seen an effective increase in our refugee intake because we can source people from zones like that, which are facing enormous challenges from around the world. And recently the Government did announce 1,400 dedicated places to people fleeing the war caused by ISIL, so we’ve already seen an effective increase in our refugee intake by being able to source more people from offshore and some of the worst situations in the world.
Hammer
But what do you think of the actual suggestion of increasing it back to 20,000 or do you think the Government in Australia is doing enough?
Ryan
Well I think Australia does a great deal. We shouldn’t forget that when we do take in people and resettle them from around the world, there are an enormous amount of support services that go with that and it’s not simply a matter of letting them into Australia. We do quite rightly provide them with educational, language and social services support; it is quite an intense process that we do to support our successful resettlement program. We’re committed to the 13,750; it’s a long standing number. It’s been the basis of a successful resettlement program and I don’t see any need to dramatically increase it.
Hammer
So you’re saying then if it were ramped up to 20,000, that’s something like a fifty percent increase, that you can’t just do that over night? You can’t resource it?
Ryan
Well, what I’m pointing out is that it’s not just a matter of 6,250 people coming into Australia, there are a lot of support services that quite rightly go with our resettlement program. So it’s not as simple as it can be to simply raise the cap. We do have limits on the amount of resources we can put in this direction. It’s a very successful program as it is, and it’s more successful now because the illegal boats have been stopped and we can bring people in from some of the most terrible circumstances all around the world; and so we don’t see a need to increase it.
Hammer
Ok, now just finally Senator; I see that Norfolk Island, the assembly there, has a proposal to permit same sex marriage on the island – which one assumes will be open to Australians from the mainland. What are your views of such a proposal from Norfolk Island?
Ryan
Well I haven’t got details of the proposal, Chris, and I haven’t seen them. But I would imagine that it would face the same legal challenges that the ACT proposal did in recent times. Marriage law, in Australia, is given by the Constitution to the Commonwealth Parliament, and the Commonwealth Parliament has defined marriage as between one man and one woman.
So I’m not quite sure what the effect of what might happen in Norfolk Island is, whether it might just be a resolution or whether they’re trying to change the law.
Hammer
Ok. Senator, thanks for your time this morning.
Ryan
Thanks, Chris.
*Ends*