Topics: Senate inquiry into the Queensland Government, Budget, wearing the burka in Parliament House
E&OE…
Chris Hammer
We’re joined now in the studio by Senator Scott Ryan, he’s a Victorian Liberal senator and he’s also the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education and Michelle Rowland, Labor member for Greenway in Sydney’s west also Shadow Minister for Multiculturalism and Citizenship. Michelle Rowland to you first. Why is Labor supporting this Senate inquiry into the Queensland Government?
Michelle Rowland
Chris, the Senate can control its own destiny as a house of review and it’s decided to set this up for the purpose of reviewing how Commonwealth money has been spent. So, the Senate to set this up for it to determine that, and let’s remember that this is not an issue without precedent. We had a situation in 2007, when the Liberals were still in government, when they set up a similar review into the activities of the Queensland Government. We had Tony Abbott in the Parliament yesterday saying that taxpayers have a right to know how their money is being spent. The Senate will do an enquiry, it will present a report and the whole aim of a Senate inquiry is to learn and to progress what is found in those reports. So if there’s nothing to hide, I would certainly welcome it and I’d think everyone else would to.
Hammer
Senator Ryan?
Ryan
Well Michelle there dodged the point where she talks about the Senate. Yesterday the Labor Party joined with the crossbenchers to set up a witch hunt which is unprecedented. There was one attempt to do something like this in the past, in the mid-1990s when Labor and the then Democrats tried to have an enquiry into the Kennett state government and eventually the enquiry wound itself up because it was unprecedented to have one level of government conducting a political enquiry into another level of government through the Parliament. Now, last week Labor voted against this motion when the motion included the period of the Bligh Labor Government. Yesterday, when their deal with the Greens and the Palmer United Party removed that clause, they jumped on board straight away. So Labor jumped on board to break one of the oldest traditions, which is that one level of government is meant to be independent of the other.
Hammer
Michelle Rowland, this is a sovereign government, the Queensland Government. What’s the Federal Government doing inquiring into another form of government?
Rowland
The Commonwealth makes grants to the States and has certain laws that impact on states, and how states operate. This is about how the State Government is spending money in the state of Queensland.
Hammer
But Senator Lazarus, who’ll chair this committee, has said that it’s into allegations that the Government has politicised the judiciary, that the police force is trying to control the judiciary. That’s not about spending Commonwealth money, that’s not what he wants to investigate.
Rowland
When you look at the text of the actual terms of reference, when you look at the actual text of the setting up of this committee I think you’ll find it’s something very different to what’s being reported there. Not entirely consistent, perhaps, with what Senator Lazarus is saying.
Hammer
So he’s wrong, is he?
Rowland
Look he’s entitled to say what he would like it to look into, but the fact of the matter is that this has been set up for a particular purpose. And can I just take issue with some of the comments that have been made about political witch hunts and doing deals. This was a government who said no deals, no deals with Palmer and yet they’ve gone off and done countless deals with them already on all these issues. When a deal happens that doesn’t involve them and they’re not happy about it, they scream blue murder.
Ryan
There’s a key difference here. You mentioned elements of the terms of reference that refer to judicial appointments, that is a matter entirely within Queensland’s state responsibility. It’s a matter that the electors of Queensland have a right to make a decision on at the election in March next year. There’s a veil here of attempted legitimacy put in place by the Labor Party yesterday, when they voted against the same motion last week; the only key difference being that this time it doesn’t include the period of the Bligh Labor Government.
Hammer
But, Senator Ryan, this Government’s been willing to break precedent itself in some of these royal commissions, not only subpoenaing prime ministers but Cabinet documents. I mean isn’t what’s good for the goose good for the gander?
Ryan
Well there’s a key difference, firstly they are matters of inquiry into core Commonwealth responsibility. That royal commission into the home insulation scandal was an inquiry into how the Commonwealth ran a program that saw hundreds of houses burnt down, businesses go bust, hundreds of people lose their jobs, and tragically four people die. That was an inquiry into the Commonwealth …
Hammer
Can I just ask what we learnt from that royal commission that we didn’t already know?
Ryan
Well what we learnt from the royal commission, I think we had a renewed focus upon how we do need to have better and clearer channels of responsibility between the executive and the public service and we do need to make sure there’s clear accountability because clearly messages weren’t being passed up the chain as the previous Labor Government put their heads in the sand. They heard no evil, they saw no evil and spoke no evil, yet houses were burning down and tragically four people lost their lives. That is profoundly different to what happened yesterday.
Let’s go with this committee. This committee has five members, only one is from the Coalition. Only one. It describes the towns that have to be visited. It has a reporting date in the days leading up to the Queensland election. This is a vehicle for a political witch hunt and Labor have broken with all convention by joining it. In the mid-1990s they realised the error of their ways when they tried to do it to the Kennett government, and hopefully they’ll come to the same conclusion this time.
Hammer
Ok, let’s move on to the Budget. Now the Government’s forecast in the Budget is that it will reduce the deficit in the next financial year from something like $48 billion to $30 billion. Can that still be achieved Senator Ryan?
Ryan
Well, we’re committed to the Budget Estimates and Budget targets that we outlined in May. There is a Mid-Year Fiscal and Economic Outlook update, which comes out in roughly in the December of each year, which provides an opportunity for the Treasury and the Government to update the forecasts, and to change parameters if policies have changed. For example, with respect to any costs we might incur for overseas actions. So we remain committed to the core task of cleaning up Labor’s Budget mess. We were on an unsustainable path previously, and Labor have made no suggestions to put us back on a sustainable path. Not only are they stopping us keeping our promises, like we made the promise to get rid of the School Kids Bonus, they tried to stop us getting rid of the carbon tax and the mining tax. They’re stopping us from keeping the promises that they made, such as some of the funding changes in higher education.
Hammer
So the core task is to achieve that repair of the Budget rather than the individual measures. If some of those individual measures can’t be achieved, they simply can’t get through the Senate, does that mean the Government is obliged to go to other measures? Sort of a Plan B if you like?
Ryan
Well as the Treasurer outlined on ABC radio this morning, where we can get measures through the Senate we will effectively take them and bank them because they are a step on the way to balancing the Budget. We’ll keep prosecuting the case for our other measures because we believe they are necessary to balance the Budget, but also we do need to constantly look at the Budget, the spending profile and the revenue profile, but particularly the rapid growth in spending that Labor left us with because that is where the Budget deficit has come from. The Budget deficit has become from unprecedented increases in government spending, because this Budget is over $100 billion bigger than the Howard Government’s last Budget.
Hammer
So how can you achieve Budget forecasts if one, you can’t get measures through the Senate and two, you don’t propose alternatives before the end of the financial year?
Ryan
Well look, let’s wait for the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook. We don’t do monthly updates on these because the parameters do change, but as we’ve seen over the last few months since the Senate changed, the Government’s commitment to negotiating in good faith with the crossbenchers has meant we’ve had to compromise on some measures, but we have got the substance of some of our key measures through.
Hammer
So we could see new measures in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook update?
Ryan
I think it would be surprising if you never saw any new measures in MYEFO; I think that would be true for every year MYEFO’s been printed.
Hammer
Ok, Michelle Rowland. Do you believe the Government can achieve its Budget goals when it comes to that Budget bottom line?
Rowland
It’s interesting, Chris, because we just heard here more ranting about how this is all Labor’s fault. I mean, this was a Budget that was handed down in May, we’re now in October. Australians rejected it, not in five months, but in five minutes for its unfairness. And now we hear talk about plan B, we hear talk about different savings measures possible being proposed. The reality is, Chris, that the Government came in and said the adults were now in charge, and yet they’re finding excuses – even from the comments we just heard – finding excuses as to why they’re not meeting their own commitments on this front.
Hammer
So do you disagree with the goal of achieving those Budget savings?
Rowland
They’ve set out and they’ve promised that they would achieve savings like Labor has said that we’ll look at responsible savings measures on a case by case basis, and we’ll do what’s best for the people. The fact is that we will not support measures, however, which are unfair and which do not reduce the deficit, and which are broken promises.
Hammer
So do you believe it’s possible, if you don’t agree with something like the GP co-payment or changes to higher education, but you’re supporting the principle of repairing the Budget and getting it back to surplus eventually, do you believe there’re measures you could potentially support?
Rowland
Well, for a start I would suggest that this Government drop its unaffordable Paid Parental Leave Scheme, there’s a good start.
Hammer
Ok, let’s move on. There are calls to ban the burka inside Parliament House for security reasons. Michelle Rowland, you’re the Shadow Minister for Citizenship and Multiculturalism, what do you make of these calls?
Rowland
The first thing I would say, Chris, is that the language in this place matters. And I actually think it is quite inappropriate, and I’ll say it up front, I actually thought it was quite inappropriate for The Sydney Morning Herald to feature the Prime Minister’s chief of staff on the front page today with her comments about banning the burka in Parliament House and I’ll tell you why. Firstly, this person’s a staffer; if her comments want to be given any credence then I suggest she nominate for Parliament and get 50,000 people who are going to vote for her, then I might consider her point of view. But the main thing here, Chris, is that the attempt to conflate national security with views that are either prejudiced or ill informed; I find it extremely concerning. I’ve seen reports that, even in the last government, we had Prime Minister Rudd who actually asked the question about whether or not the burka was national security issue that had been raised by agencies, and the reports I’ve seen is that it never was. Now Barry O’Farrell, when he was Premier of New South Wales, he dealt with this issue a couple of years ago with a minimum of fuss. The whole issue was about being able to identify people regardless of what headwear they were wearing to go into court, to go into places of high security et cetera and there was never an issue with Barry O’Farrell about this being a matter of prejudice. He said ‘I don’t care whether you’ve got a motorcycle helmet, a balaclava or whatever; the issue is identification and that can be achieved, and is widely achieved, with a minimum of fuss’.
Hammer
So who is conflating national security with prejudice?
Rowland
I firstly think the fact that this Prime Minister has failed to put his foot down and draw a line in the sand on this issue, and is letting people like Mr Christensen and his friends go off on this merry frolic; to have Senator Bernardi actually proposing this review on the basis of security grounds, I think is incredibly concerning when you look at what is happening in the community. We’ve seen innocent people being assaulted, reports of innocent people being assaulted in the community. People having their children spat on because of the way they look. We say one thing in this place, we say one thing publicly but then we see other things being said by members of this government and I think a line just needs to be drawn in the sand here to say that this isn’t and should not be about national security, this should simply be a matter that we don’t need to discuss. And if it is something concerning the identification of people, it happens already with a minimum of fuss – not the amount of discussion that’s happening at the moment.
Hammer
Ok. Scott Ryan, what’s you reaction to this allegation that some of your colleagues are conflating prejudice with security concerns?
Ryan
Well let me start by, I thought I was going to agree with Michelle there for a minute, but I’ll have to withdraw from that. I think that the Fairfax article this morning did blow out of proportion what the Prime Minister’s chief of staff said. When I read the full article I read it as Peta Credlin making that exact point, if there is a security issue it will be considered. And I thought that the headline, so to speak, actually did try and conflate the two, yet that’s not reflected in my view in the report of what I understand was a private conversation which I think has its own issues about staff’s conversations being reported, but can I just address a few things Michelle said there.
My position in terms of the general community has been clear, and I’ve made the point last week, I don’t believe there should be a law banning a form of religious dress. I don’t believe this Commonwealth Parliament has the power to pass such a law.
But on the other issue of where there is a security issue, I think Michelle’s got it wrong. I think the idea that we say to people ‘no you can’t talk about issues’, is actually one of the problems that the Left in Australia have created, that leads to nasty debate. The way these debates are addressed, and George Christensen and Cory Bernardi are my friends – and I happen to disagree with them on a couple of issues but everyone does with their friends – the way to address this is to actually have an open and free-flowing discussion. Nothing in that article that was said by Mr Christensen, in my view, was inappropriate to say even if someone disagrees with it; what Peta Credlin was saying was if there’s any issue that will be looked at, and that refers to the identification issue Michelle said. But the idea that politicians or other people shouldn’t debate things, and we should somehow oppress those debates because we t find them unpleasant, that’s not the way to address them. We reach a consensus on issue by discussing them.
Hammer
Can I just ask you, on the issue of Parliament House, there has been another issue in the past of people appearing in court and whether the jury can see their faces, but this is about a security issue. People visiting Parliament House are scanned, they go through metal detectors, their goods are scanned and so would it matter if they’re wearing a burka or not? Would you feel unsafe?
Ryan
Well I think it applies to the public and the non-public areas, so of course Parliament has the public area and everyone goes through scanning and in that public area there are guards. But as we know, particularly until recently with security being increased, the areas of Parliament once you got behind the glass doors where Parliament House works, where people like you and I have offices, there’s a much lower level of security.
(Inaudible)
As we saw, we did have an incident with Prime Minister Gillard where someone had got through security and they had been wandering the private areas of the building for 43 minutes and walked up to within arm’s reach of the Prime Minister.
Hammer
If I wanted to breach that security though, like that gentleman did, I don’t think I’d try wearing a burka.
Ryan
No. My point is that the issues of security, I don’t think we can say that there’s no security issue; that’s why we’ve had to increase security recently in the building. This is a matter for the presiding officers, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House. They take advice from experts, they take advice from agencies. I’m quite happy to defer to their judgement on these issues.
Hammer
Michelle Rowland, you made the point about conflating prejudice with security matters. Is there any argument, any case that you can imagine where for purely security reasons a burka or headscarf should rightly be banned or removed at least temporarily?
Rowland
The temporary removal in order to enable identification is actually well documented. I actually took the time to go through some of the reforms that happened in New South Wales and what followed there, be it in courts, be it in other high security places and protocols are established for that to happen with a minimum of fuss. But before I go on Chris I want to take issue with one thing the Senator said; this is not a matter of people who are just wanting to seek to conflate security and prejudicial issues. I really take issue with the fact that here in Parliament House we have a Prime Minister talking about the need for inclusiveness and harmony, but one thing is said on certain issues like section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, like the need to not fret about what people are wearing. And yet we still have those widespread discussions here that are going even in contrast to what the Prime Minister is actually saying. That is why, last week, I said that it’s time for the Prime Minister to put his foot down here. I honestly believe that it is time for some real national leadership on this issue so we don’t have situations where people are being abused or vilified simply because of their religion or what they’re wearing.
Ryan
We have had national leadership. The Prime Minister and every, every member of this Government has made clear that this is not about any religious faith; this is not about a culture, this is about national security.
Rowland
Hang on…
Ryan
Let me have a run, Michelle, I let you finish. That leadership has indeed been shown, in fact over the last six to eight weeks, the Prime Minister has taken Australians in great detail through the level of risk we’re exposed to. And I think it’s the way he’s conducted that discussion that meant the tragic events of last Tuesday evening, when the two police were stabbed and he young man was shot, actually if that had become out of the blue and we hadn’t had that discussion taking place, I think it actually would have been more shocking to the community. But unlike the Labor Party, we can’t supress statements of members in the Liberal Party. Now I happen to disagree with some of things my colleagues say some of time, as I’m sure you do, but there’s no role for people to simply shut down debate. Because of the ways we deal with issues like this, and one of the ways we deal with challenges and no one supports harassment in the streets, no one supports that sort of vilification, but it happens daily and it happened before this. There are parts of Melbourne and Sydney where there are security providers to Jewish schools specifically because of the harassment that’s taken place. No statement of a politician can stop that happening, but what we’ve had is leadership to show the community that it’s not acceptable.
Hammer
Senator Scott Ryan, Michelle Rowland, we’re going to have to leave it there but thank you so much.
(Ends)