Topics: Death of Gough Whitlam, ISIL video targeting Australia, Immigration and border protection.
E&OE…
Chris Hammer
We are joined now in the studio by Labor’s Ed Husic and Liberal Senator Scott Ryan. Good morning, gentlemen.
First, Parliament’s normal rigours have been disrupted this week by the death of Gough Whitlam. Ed Husic, for you, what does Whitlam mean to you?
Ed Husic
I guess on a number of levels, Gough had a big impact on me and people of my generation in many respects, because particularly as a child of migrants, where he sought to give everyone the chance to participate in the modern Australia, where he called them up to be part of the process of building modern Australia. His call resonated within migrant communities, and I guess I would say, in large part, I’ve been able to make it here because in many respects he opened the door for migrants and their children to be involved. And that was built upon regardless of politics – both sides of politics recognised that turning point and took advantage of it. He also clearly gave us the chance to go into higher education, which at that point was difficult to get into, and he opened up the doors there.
In terms of living in Western Sydney and having the infrastructure that we now take for granted, which has been reflected on – providing sewerage systems in Western Sydney. You only have to think now, if nature calls in the middle of the night and you’re forced to go out of your house, which is what happened for a lot of people, and not have proper water and sewerage systems in place and the impact that that has on your living and your quality of living – these are big things.
But I think the breadth of his vision, and I think the fact that he energised people to be part of that vision will always stand him in good stead.
And I think the final remark that I want to make is, yesterday – you mentioned the sort of impact it had on the Parliamentary schedule – obviously a lot of us on the Labor side feel very strongly about it, but what I think lifted my spirits on a personal level was seeing the contribution of the Coalition in this debate, and the recognition by the Prime Minister, who spoke very well, Malcolm Turnbull spoke very well, but one of the contributions I think needs to be recognised is the Deputy Prime Minister’s. Warren Truss, in his own way, paid great respect to Gough’s vision yesterday in Parliament, and on a personal level I think it was one of the standout contributions that I think people need to go back and have a look at his words. And I pay tribute to his fine contribution yesterday.
HAMMER
Scott Ryan, what does Gough Whitlam mean for you?
Scott Ryan
Well I think it’s entirely appropriate that the Parliament paused yesterday.
Anyone that achieves the office of Prime Minister of Australia has made a significant contribution to our nation. There won’t be a history of Australia written without Gough Whitlam listed pretty heavily in the index.
The one thing that I think that his work reflected on, which was commented on in the contributions in the House yesterday – the Senate and those Senators that were close to him will have an opportunity next week – is how Gough viewed public debate and democracy as very important.
We have our differences over policies and then of course there’s the moments in 1975, which we can argue about forever more. But the one thing about Gough that I think everyone can really acknowledge him for was that he thought it was his job to mount the case publicly and mount the case for his views.
After he left public office, he didn’t leave public life. He was a public intellectual in that sense. Australia doesn’t always know how to best make use of its former leaders. Gough was someone that did carve out a bit of a new niche.
In hindsight, he probably didn’t make use of some of our past leaders before that, particularly Sir Robert Menzies. But Gough carved a bit of a new path for former leaders – he contributed to debates, he kept arguing about those arguments he had in the 70s, and how they applied in the 80s and 90s and the last decade. And ironically, and I think he would appreciate this; he was responsible for an enormous number of people getting involved in public life.
We’ve heard from the Labor Party, we’ve heard from the Greens, and without meaning to reflect in a negative way, a lot of people got involved in the Liberal Party because of the Whitlam era. And the more people that get involved in public life, and see the opportunity to mount the argument publicly to convince people, to engage people, and to seek to win these debates in the public sphere, I think will make our politics a lot stronger.
HUSIC
Very well said.
HAMMER
Can I ask you this? Two of Whitlam’s big achievements that have been heralded in the past 24 hours was opening up universities – free university education – and universal healthcare. Now, to some extent at the moment this Government is winding those back to an extent with the deregulation of the university sector, with the GP co-payment. Is that because the Government believes that those kind of policies are flawed – that they’re essentially inherently no good – or is it simply a matter of they’re not affordable, that the Government just can’t afford to pay for it?
RYAN
Let’s look at the facts to start with. Firstly, as the Prime Minister said in his, what I think quite a remarkable contribution…
HUSIC
[Interrupts] And a funny one.RYAN
Yeah, and with the anecdote about the debate about ecclesiastical law, I thought it was hilarious…
HUSIC
[Interrupts] And the DLP anecdote!RYAN
It showed Gough’s humour. Gough Whitlam lived in a very different era. So, for example, there wasn’t a debate about bulk billing in the 1970s.
As our health system changed from one where hospitals were places that had very few facilities – there were no MRIs, there weren’t heart bypasses, there were no hips. You went to hospital to get your appendix out or to get a leg reset. It was very acute care.
We didn’t have an aged care system in the same way because people didn’t live as long. And so the Medibank scheme that Gough brought in – wasn’t the same debates we have now. There was no debate about bulk billing or free healthcare, and in fact the scheme that Gough brought in was very different to the NHS – the sort of monolithic, socialist health model that Britain got after World War II – and if anything that’s I think why it generated public support, because there was a role for private and public – a bit like our education system. So let’s just put it in context.
I don’t think in any way the Government’s proposals undermine the universal access to healthcare because everyone still has access to all the Medicare payments scheduled, to all the Pharmaceutical Benefits scheduled. We’re debating about how to best manage a universal healthcare system.
When it comes to education, Ed mentioned this – this is another area where we have to be careful not to mythologise – the socioeconomic makeup, apart from the participation of females, didn’t dramatically change with fee-free higher education. The socioeconomic makeup of education has changed as greater numbers have gone in, but there was a substantial scholarship scheme that was in place under the Menzies government, when he expanded higher education – something Gough always gave Menzies credit for. And so a great number of people actually had a better system. My uncles, for example, who got scholarships and [inaudible], he as well as having their fees covered in the 60s – for fee-free education, he actually got offered a bursary to cover living expenses, and that started to disappear when the money started to go into making sure that everyone got there free.
So, I think it’s fair to say that we’re proposing a series of higher education reforms that deal with much wider participation, many more opportunities, a very different economy, and a very different education sector that responds to that.
HAMMER
Would you accept that, Ed, that the Government isn’t trying to throw out those concepts – they’re just trying to manage them in an affordable way?
HUSIC
I am sort of confronted with a great difficulty by your question so far as I, in the aftermath of the news that we’ve had in terms of Gough’s passing, you sort of want to be able to give it a degree of space for people to remember, and to be able to pay respects. And while I am, and Scott is well aware, more than happy for us to engage in the type of debate that, you made the point earlier, that taking this on in the public space – I’m trying to walk that line between that moment where you pause to remember versus the necessity to have those debates publicly.
What I would say is that governments, regardless of political cue, are confronted with changing circumstances and need to address them in the way they see fit. And that does not in any way, shape or form mean that I am endorsing what the Government is saying. The Government believes that it wants to address the issues of healthcare and education the way they do. We, naturally, strongly feel that the way in which they are doing it is inconsistent with a number of things they have said in the past, and the promises that they’ve made. But having said that, I think your government needs to suit the times and I guess the point I’d also make is that what Gough tried to do was change the times in which he lived – but he did it in the context of that moment.
For us, we obviously need to recognise that decades have passed by us and we now have to face up to different challenges, and it’s up to us as the major political parties to find the best way through, but to do it in a way that, I think, if I can take the offer that Scott has put, which is to be able to debate these things in the public space and bring people with us.
I think the failing of modern politics is that we haven’t been able to find – we haven’t sought to persuade, we’ve sought in many instances to entertain, and I’ve been as guilty of that as others. But I always do think, and I know Scott does this because I listen to his contributions, to try to find the evidence, the arguments, to convince. The strength for us in the future is to look at those things in the past and do that – have the ability to persuade the public, not to just get the lines of the day and batter people into agreement because they’re numb from what they’ve heard.
HAMMER
Okay, let’s leave the Whitlam legacy there, and move on to some contemporary issues. This was overshadowed by the death of Gough Whitlam, but we’ve seen this video released by this young man Abdullah Elmir, a 17-year-old Sydneysider, who is now signed up with ISIL, threatening Australia, threatening Tony Abbott.
Senator Ryan, I wonder if the Prime Minister’s statement that we’re being targeted because of who we are, not what we’re doing in Iraq and Syria – is that starting to look a little threadbare I wonder?
RYAN
The video is horrific. I mean to manipulate, effectively a boy – that hasn’t happened to him overnight. And the people doing that stand condemned, and they should. But I think with respect to what we’ve said, we’ve got here an opportunistic yet murderous group that have been the first group to actually start to use the tools of Western technology – things like social media – for their horrific objectives. So I think in this case, rather than saying that the Prime Minister’s statement is questionable – I think it stands, because what you’ve got here is an opportunistic group that has been using this technology and the media to effectively send its message of hate all around the world. I think every Australian will condemn the people involved in this, not only for the threats of violence against Australia and the Prime Minister, but also for what they’re doing to, effectively, a child.
HAMMER
Ed Husic, do you believe there’s a greater threat to Australia because of our involvement in Iraq, or do you agree with the Prime Minister’s statement that really we’re being targeted because of what we represent – because we’re a liberal democracy?
HUSIC
This argument has rumbled around in the public space for quite some time and I don’t see that there is cause of A leads to B, in the sense of our involvement leads to this.
I think there is a threat that’s being posed to the type of values that we cherish in the West, particularly democracies. And, picking up on the point that Scott made, the irony, or perhaps the deliberate intent to use the things that have come about as a result of the environment in which we live in the West – the social media that has been developed has been developed because it’s been able to do so in the Western environment, or in advanced economies, and advanced democracies allow that to occur and now they’re appropriating it to effectively challenge Western democracies. Ultimately, we do need to champion the things that we love the most about the country that we live in and the environment in which we operate, and freedom of thought and expression. But also the respect of law, and the respect of others. And for young people, and I think this is what is so horrifying and incredibly disappointing about what we’re seeing, is someone so young who’s been able to have that opportunity in our country to then go over and subscribe, in such a violent way, and to put forward a threat in such a heinous way, is very confronting but it is something we can’t turn away from.
We need to deal with it, and we need to deal with the threat as it exists overseas, but we also need to ensure that here, we’re tracking down those people that are encouraging, as Scott says, this young person who is still a boy – has had influences. We need to track down those people that are those influences and we need to remove young people who might be tempted by those influences. So, de-radicalising is critical, doing whatever we can to fast-track and support those initiatives the Government’s announced, they’re very important and de-radicalising is critical, too. And in the way that we do it, in terms of shaping our response to these, in terms of the anti-terror laws that are brought to Parliament, recognising too that we have to deal with the threat, and we also have to do it in a way that doesn’t compromise our values as well – the things that we hold dear, too. And that’s a challenge in itself.
HAMMER
Okay, now The Guardian Australia is reporting this morning that Scott Morrison has issued a number of ‘conclusive certificates’. These are to prevent, as I understand it, the settlement of people who have been found to be refugees, have passed security and character checks, and yet the Minister can say ‘prevent them from settling permanently in Australia, block off any appeals to refugee tribunals or the court systems in the national interest,’ and the Minister doesn’t have to give a reason why.
Now does that concern you, Ed Husic?
HUSIC
Well it’s yet another example of continued behaviour by Scott Morrison – a behaviour that is wrapped up in hypocrisy. I mean, he would never have tolerated this type of behaviour. When he was opposition spokesperson, he would never have tolerated this. We would have heard from him incessantly and constantly that this was wrong. There are certainly avenues for Immigration Ministers to act, I understand that, and he’ll exercise his discretion from time to time. But where there is an element of dispute, and what’s coming out of this is that is been interpreted as an attempt to sidestep court decisions, then this is a problem. And again, I go to these weekly press conferences instead of conferences as they should occur to let people know what’s happening, an inability to be transparent and act transparently. For instance, there are 157 or so people sitting in the Indian Ocean and we don’t know about it until the High Court reveals it, and then this is what we’re confronted with today, again demonstrates that he’s behaving in government in a way that he would not have tolerated in opposition.
RYAN
Can I just say, Ed, to be fair, the Government has had an explicit policy for years in opposition and we called on Labor to implement it, and that was for Temporary Protection Visas.
Now to be fair, if the Labor Party had implemented that, it would have had Coalition support because we called for it and we said so repeatedly.
Now, this is a power the Minister has under the Act as Ed mentioned. What we have is a group of people who are constantly seeking to get around the overwhelmingly expressed will of the people, which is to support strong border protection policies – a critical part of which is Temporary Protection Visas. And so I don’t know, other than what I’ve read in The Guardian, the backgrounds of this particular case, but if we take the facts as outlined in The Guardian there, then the Minister has issued a conclusive certificate – a power that he has under the Act – and he can be asked a question about that. But we are very clear; we have to have Temporary Protection Visas in order to maintain successful policies that have stopped the boats that Labor opened the floodgates to when Kevin Rudd changed the rules.
We’ve said that over and over again, yet we constantly have the Labor Party and the Greens, supported by legal activists, doing everything they can to frustrate in the Parliament and in the courts the will of the people to have those. And all the Minister is doing is using his powers under the Act to actually implement Government policies.
HAMMER
But isn’t he circumventing the will of the Parliament and if he does want to issue conclusive certificates, why not give the reason why? Why these people – they’re recognised as refugees, they’ve passed security and character tests – why not let it go through the appeal process?
RYAN
Well, he issued a conclusive certificate for a reason – he can explain that. But it’s a power under the Act and if the Minister has said that this is within the national interest, that is the express will of the Parliament to grant the Minister that power. And so all the Coalition is trying to do is to implement the policies that we have taken over and over again to the Australian people, that we know worked a decade ago, that we know were dismantled at the start of the flood.
HUSIC
There are two points I would make in response to that, Scott.
First, this is a power that is not often used. So by virtue of that, you would expect that he would explain it, as per your invitation. The issue is he hasn’t, and he doesn’t have to give reasons as to why.
Now, picking up on Chris’s point about the will of the Parliament, maybe one way to respect the will of the Parliament is to make a ministerial statement on it, which I’ll be surprised he do. And he won’t outline individual reasons, so while I take on board your point that you have had a position which we have opposed in terms of Temporary Protection Visas, and that you’ve had that consistency, the application of the conclusive certificate has never been outlined as a mechanism that would be employed to give effect to the will that you wanted to breathe life into. And so that is the problem – we don’t have the detail.
My issue is, in the way that he manages his portfolio, is that this lack of transparency, as I made the comment a few moments ago – without sounding repetitious – flies in the face of the expectations that he uttered when he was opposition immigration spokesperson.
HAMMER
Isn’t that the issue here, Scott Ryan? We’re talking about this situation and none of us know why the Minister has made these conclusive certificates. He might have a really good reason, but there is this lack of transparency.
RYAN
There may also be a restriction on what the Minister can say with the conclusive certificate – I don’t know the Act. But a conclusive certificate exists in a number of acts – it used to exist in the FOI Act – so there may indeed be restrictions on what the Minister can say, I don’t know. This is a highly complex area of law, and with all due respect, Ed, the Labor Party can say they may have dismantled all of John Howard’s successful border protection policies before 2007 – you’re asking us to have detailed sections of the Act used to implement our policy. What the Australian people are interested in is that the boats have stopped and that thousands of people who are risking their lives and unlawfully coming into Australia have stopped. Labor is trying to constantly talk about issues like transparency as a foil for the fact that we have succeeded in fixing the disaster that we inherited from you.
HUSIC
No, I think what succeeded is the Refugee Resettlement Agreement, and the other point I’d make, too, is when we were in government we had similar challenges, Scott. We had activist groups that took cases to the High Court, they challenged it, they won, and when we sought to actually make legislative change, the Coalition wouldn’t support us. Look at what happened with Malaysia [inaudible]…
RYAN
[Inaudible]HAMMER
[Interrupts] A long and interesting conversation but I think we need to draw a line under it. Thanks for joining us.RYAN
Thanks Chris.
HUSIC
Thanks Chris.
RYAN
Thanks Ed.
(Ends)