Bruce Baird - The Nation.

8/4/2019 Bruce Baird - The Nation.

1/55

The Nation 18 April 2012

Sky News

The Nation

18 April 2012

David Speers:

Welcome to the program. The asylum seeker debate in parliament this week saw the

animosity and bitterness between the two sides of politics reach even new heights. The

government and Opposition have been unable to reach agreement on offshore

processing, which means they'll now be blaming each other for every boat that arrives

and has to be processed onshore. The Prime Minister accused the opposition leader ofputting his own narrow self-interest ahead of the national interest, while Tony Abbott

accused Julia Gillard of being arrogant, having a psychological weakness, and

demanded in the end that she resign. It all culminated in Tony Abbott pushing a story

that Kevin Rudd was counting the numbers to mount a challenge to grab back the

leadership; a claim that Labor insiders, including Rudd supporters, deny. To look at how

things stand at the end of this parliamentary week we're joined by Labor Senator and

former NSW party boss Matt Thistlewaite; Bruce Baird, a former Liberal MP and also

chair of the Refugee Resettlement Advisory Council; former Labor staffer Cassandra

Wilkinson; and Liberal Senator and Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Simon Birmingham.Welcome to you all. Let's start with the migration debate. Senator, let's go back to

Labor's shift on this issue, because for a decade or more Labor argued against offshore

processing, saying that asylum seekers should of only be dealt with here on the

Australian mainland. Why did Labor suddenly shift on this earlier in the year and accept

that offshore processing was the way to go?

Matt Thistlewaite:

Well the nature of the problem has changed dramatically in the course of the last

couple of years. During the Howard Government the policy was to turn back the boats.

That was found to not work because these people-smugglers would simply disable the

boats, punch holes in them, some would end up catching on fire; people would

potentially be in dangerous situations. Our defence force personnel would be in

dangerous situations. So we took the advice of the experts, the departmental officials,


2/55


who said that we need to provide an effective deterrent to people-smuggling whilst at

the same time....

Bruce Baird:

You just took the advice of people out in marginal seats. It was a political issue. The

rest of that is nonsense. It is not because of those things.

David Speers:

So you are saying it was the department that changed its view and you guys just

followed?

Matt Thistlewaite:

No, we took a consideration of the change in the nature of the circumstances, and we

have developed a policy which meets our international commitments, but also at the

same time provides...

Bruce Baird:

Do you mean the UNHCR?

David Speers:

But something happened in between 2007 and 2010. At the 2007 election Labor went

to that election saying: We will also turn back the boats, despite what you're saying

about the problems we saw under Howard with that.

Matt Thistlewaite:

For the reasons that I have just outlined, that policy doesn't work.


3/55


Simon Birmingham:

Which circumstances changed, Matt?

Matt Thistlewaite:

The issue of people-smugglers disabling boats.

Simon Birmingham:

Between 2007 when you dismantled the Howard regime...

Matt Thistlewaite:

People being thrown overboard.

Simon Birmingham.

...and last 12 months when you've decided you're wanting to actually go beyond what

Howard had, what changed? What happened in that couple of years when you were in

government? Don't tell us what happened and how it was there.

Cassandra Wilkinson:

Bruce is entitled to get stuck into you but you have a lot of gall getting stuck into him

since your party's policy's even worse.

Simon Birmingham:

Our party's policies worked, his party's policies dismantled it.

Bruce Baird:


4/55


5/55


Matt Thistlewaite:

The influx of boats, the approach of people-smugglers.

David Speers:

But why was there an influx of boats?

Matt Thistlewaite:

Well because of circumstances elsewhere in the world.

David Speers:

Not because of Labor dismantling the Howard Government's Pacific Solution?

Matt Thistlewaite:

No. I mean, that's beyond our control. The flow of refugees relates to circumstanceselsewhere and people...

David Speers:

All push factors and not pull factors?

Matt Thistlewaite:

Yes, all push factors. The evidence shows that people that make the journey to

Australia by boat will come through Malaysia, will come through Indonesia.

David Speers:


6/55


So if pull factors aren't an issue why do you need a deterrent?

Matt Thistlewaite:

Because we are developing a regional architecture that deals with this issue. You need

to deter people from making these unsafe journeys, from getting on leaky boats, from

ending up on the rocks at Christmas Island.


We can provide a safe journey. We can send our own ships over there, that would

make it a safe journey.

Matt Thistlewaite:

That's what our policy is aimed at, it's providing an effective deterrent. But also, I

might say, ensuring we meet our international commitments. Now part of that is

working with countries in our regions to ensure that we prioritise UNHCR refugees, that

we prioritise people that are coming through camps in Africa.

David Speers:

Simon Birmingham, the Coalition has also gone through a bit of a policy transformation

recently on this. You used to believe...

Bruce Baird:

Very concerned with human rights.

David Speers:

You used to believe that you didn't need to send asylum seekers only to countries that

had signed the refugee convention, you argued against that of course. Now you're


7/55


demanding that only countries that are signatory to the convention be used for offshore

processing. Why is that suddenly so important?

Simon Birmingham:

David, the Coalition's recognised that the High Court decision provides a decent

argument for why you should provide some greater certainty with the Migration Act. We

have responded to that by saying here is a good way to do it without throwing every

single safeguard out in the process. That's the process we have taken and the

government wants...

David Speers:

But you are refusing to cooperate with government on the grounds that only countries

who have signed the convention should process asylum seekers. Why is that suddenly a

Coalition sticking point?

Simon Birmingham:

Because we wrote the Migration Act saying that we can transfer migrants, transfer

asylum seekers, to countries that have certain safeguards in place. Now, the High Courtfound that there were discretionary powers there for the minister and there were issues

with how they were applied. So we want to put something that's black and white in

there instead, and the black and white scenario is to say is it a country that has signed

up to the convention or is not a country that's signed up to the convention. That's a

clear ministerial determination, it's a clear fact. It's a matter of fact for all.

Bruce Baird:

You didn't worry about that with Nauru. The one that you are arguing for before in

terms of the previous government, which I was a part, I don't think the human rights

aspect of signing the UNHCR ever came into it. So now we've got a situation where the

current government who didn't agree with offshore processing now is arguing for it,

and the Opposition that used to ignore the fact that Nauru wasn't a signatory to the

UNHCR is opposing Malaysia because they aren't a signatory.


8/55


Simon Birmingham:

But it's a good thing that Nauru is signing the refugee convention.

David Speers:

Bruce, why have both sides gone through this transformation? Is it politics pure and

simple?

Bruce Baird:

It is kind of the Penrith syndrome, as you well know, Senator, being from the NSW

right. And they go out there and say, look, do something about the boats, stop the

boats and we'll all be okay. So they say okay, Julia, what are we going to do, let's come

up with something. And instead of saying this whole process, we have been and had

advice, it is about pure politics.

David Speers:

What about the Coalition, why have they suddenly gone...

Bruce Baird:

Because there want to wedge the government. I haven't seen members terribly

concerned about the human rights aspects in the past.

Simon Birmingham:

Bruce, in fairness, the government is asking to strip out the only parts of the Migration

Act that actually of course said there needs to be some standard to the country that

you can...


9/55



Pretending that your outrage is based on compassion is absolutely breathtaking, given

that you're trying to stop people from fleeing their persecution to seek refugee here.

You keep talking about deterrents as if the prospect...

Simon Birmingham:

Actually I haven't mentioned the word deterrents, but anyway.


Your leader and your party talks about people as if they are a problem. We should becelebrating the boats, we should be celebrating the fact that the Vietnamese people

came here.

Bruce Baird:

I don't know whether we should celebrate the boats.


Well of course we should.

David Speers:

Let's explore this. Why should and how should we celebrate the boats?


We should celebrate the fact that the Vietnamese people who came here on first boats

have become a fantastic part of the Australian community.


10/55


11/55


Simon Birmingham:

David, firstly can I say we should celebrate the fact that Australia takes 13,000 genuine

refugees a year.

Bruce Baird:

Here, here, that's true.

Simon Birmingham:

And that should absolutely be celebrated.


It's a good start.

Simon Birmingham:

It is a case of how we go about taking them and ensuring that we get the most worthy,

the most appropriate, the most needy people actually taking those positions for

Australia. But to your question, absolutely, in the end offshore processing in and of

itself is not a deterrent of great scale. It was a package of deterrents the Howard

Government had. It involved temporary protection visas, yes, it involved offshore

processing. It involved turning the boats around where safe and possible. It was a

package of things. And that's the problem this government has. They announced the

Malaysian solution but the boats kept coming. One thousand people arrived after they

announced the Malaysian program. More than 400 of the 800 places were already filled

before the High Court knocked it out. So it shows that that in and of itself was not

going to work.



12/55


Which has to do with internal violence in Burma, Sri Lanka, and in Africa.

Matt Thistlewaite:

In the wake of the High Court decision the government did what any good government

would do, and we took the advice of the department and took the advice of the Solicitor

General to ensure that we could re-establish control over our immigration program.

And that means that the government has the ability to use executive power for offshore

processing, but also to ensure that we can prioritise our humanitarian intake and

increase the intake.


The job of the government is not to represent the public service. The job of the Prime

Minister is not to be an advocate for the public service. We are not a technocracy we

are a democracy.

Simon Birmingham:

Kevin thought we were but we'll come to Kevin later on.


Another good reason he should not come back. The parties - yours, ours - exist to

come up with the best policy and to challenge the public service to bring compassion

and thought and integrity of the process. If all you are is a representative for the

bureaucracy, what on earth are you doing there?

Matt Thistlewaite:

Cass, you have worked in government, Bruce you've obviously been a government

representative, when you're faced with the prospect of a High Court decision such as

this one did, you take the advice of the paid representatives in the department of the

Solicitor-General.


13/55


14/55


Bruce Baird:

That's not true, it worked for a while.

Matt Thistlewaite:

It will not provide an effective deterrent in the current circumstances. It's costly, 95%

of those people that were found to be genuine refugees ended up being processed...

Simon Birmingham:

That's not true.

Matt Thistlewaite.

...in either Australia or New Zealand. Genuine refugees. Those who were found to be

genuine refugees ended up in Australia or New Zealand.

Simon Birmingham:

30%.

Matt Thistlewaite:

It is not an effective deterrent to people getting on the boats.

Bruce Baird:

I think both those figures are wrong.

David Speers:


15/55


Let's not get bogged down on the percentage, but a lot of them end up in Australia and

New Zealand. Yes it might be costly, or it was costly the first time around building the

joint, but so will it be costly to process all asylum claims on shore, won't it, to build the

more detention centres that are going to be necessary. I mean, this is going to be

pretty costly.


But it's not expensive if you let people go into the community and get jobs.

David Speers:

But they're not about to do that.


No, but they do. They did for hundreds of years. People who were migrants got jobs.

That's what they're supposed to be doing.

Bruce Baird:

That's what they do everywhere else.

David Speers:

You not about to do that, you're not about to let them go and live in the community are

you?

Matt Thistlewaite:

As I mentioned earlier, this government and any government, any previous

government, has always sought to exercise control over our immigration program. And

we are not unique there. All governments throughout the world put caps on their

intakes, and we seek to maximise...


16/55


17/55


David Speers:

The difference with the United States though is a lot of them get sent back over the

border to Mexico, don't they?

Bruce Baird:

Well a lot of them are waiting their claim provisions, the same as we would. We should

take our time when they are let out in the community, evaluating are they a security

threat. The reality is if you're a security threat you're not going to come via a way of

being a refugee, because you know you're under the hammer. They'd come under -

there is a very large, there is five million visitors here.

David Speers:

What do you make of this argument that is attributed to the department, that if we

don't have offshore processing we are going to have floods of arrivals and the sort of

social problems that we have seen in London and Paris.

Bruce Baird:

Well I just think that that sounds like it was written by Pauline Hanson. I know the head

of the department, he's a terrific guy, and I think he was probably taken out of context.

But one of the big problems - all that the government is talking about is deterrents to

stop people come. What about the other side of providing incentives. They talk about

that we don't want queue-jumpers. What about actually having a queue in Malaysia?

There was at least one good thing about the Malaysian one, that they were going to

bring people down who established to be genuine refugees. There was some problems,

as Simon has mentioned, with the legislation of protection, which was taken out by thegovernment which made it difficult. But the idea of having in Malaysia, where you have

more people transiting through than anywhere else, or in Thailand, or in Indonesia -

like we did with the Vietnam issue - and then bring people down to Australia. There

were 20,000 that came during the Vietnamese period, I think would provide incentives.


18/55


David Speers:

Just explain how that would work. You'd have, what, some sort of processing centre in

Malaysia?

Bruce Baird:

Processing centre. If you speak to people who have come as refugees by boat, asylum

seekers, people say why did you come by boat? And they say, because what else are

we going to do? There was no queue we could join and so that was the only way...

David Speers:

So about 100,000, or perhaps a little less in Malaysia, asylum seekers at the moment,

so you would have all of them registered with this processing centre?

Bruce Baird:

No, I would say those who are interested in going to Australia...

David Speers:

They would all want to come to Australia, surely.

Bruce Baird:

Could be registered.

David Speers:

All 100,000 will want to come to Australia.

Bruce Baird:


19/55


Some may say no, and we would have the ability according to the numbers that we

had, according to the quotas we had around the world, to be able to provide safe

passage for those people.

David Speers:

But the point is, you're going to have 100,000 or near there amount wanting to come

here. Or say 50,000.


Why is that a problem?

David Speers:

I want to get to this point. So if you have an orderly process to bring that 50,000 or

100,000 to Australia, that's going to take time. Surely there are still going to be some

who want to risk it and get in a boat?

Bruce Baird:

That's true, they will. And those people who actually get here should be processed

onshore and evaluated quickly. Are they genuine refugees or not.

David Speers:

And those who risk it and get on a dodgy boat, what do you do with them; send them

back?

Bruce Baird:

The people who come on boat, you process them when they arrive in the country, like

they do everywhere else, like they do in Italy every day of the week.


20/55


David Speers:

But isn't that just going to encourage more to get on the dodgy boats?

Bruce Baird:

I don't believe so. Let me give you this figure...


There is a false premise which is imagining that getting on that boat is the most

dangerous situation those people have ever been in. The fact is they choose to get on

the boat because that's less dangerous, that's less of a risk than staying where they've

come from.

David Speers:

That may be so, but why encourage them to do that?


But we haven't. They're far beyond the point of being encouraged at that point. They

have already left where they're from, they're fleeing persecution.

David Speers:

Not when they are in Malaysia and Indonesia though.

Simon Birmingham:

That's the same for people who are sitting in refugee camps around the world, who

have fled persecution.


21/55



But why would you set limits?

Simon Birmingham:

Because we want to maintain community support for an immigration program. If you

have no limits community support will break down.


If you wanted to maintain community support for immigration you would be out there

celebrating the success of immigration, instead of running scare campaigns about

immigrants.

Simon Birmingham:

I think you would find there are politicians that would be celebrating that every day of

the week.

David Speers:

Just to break this down, if Australia is to put out a welcome mat and say we will have

no limit and accept any asylum seeker who makes it here, you don't think we will end

up with potentially what are the numbers, five million?

Bruce Baird:

No, this is all part of the scare...

David Speers:


22/55


I'm talking globally. But nonetheless, are you going to end up with hundreds of

thousands coming to Australia by boat?


They abolished the border controls in Europe and people didn't all immediately flee to

the most prosperous sections. They're having much more free exchange of labour as

well as capital throughout the European Union, and there hasn't been a social

meltdown. There have been pockets of racial disharmony, certainly not enough that any

respectable public servant should be suggesting there will be riots in the street in

Australia. It's absurd. Most refugees around the world don't want to come to Australia.

It's a long way. Most people move to countries very near where they're from. They

usually go to the next safest, closest place they can find, and that's where they stay

because they intend eventually to go home. They don't want to cross half the world and

set up a new life in a country where they don't speak the language. But if they do that

then we should respect the effort and enthusiasm and determination they have made to

become Australians and welcome them.

David Speers:

What do you think of that argument?

Matt Thistlewaite:

Well I think that the government should prioritise a humanitarian intake through the

UNHCR, and that's what Labor's program is all about; providing an effective deterrent

to stop people making that risky journey, getting on the boats. But ensuring that we're

working within the region to prioritise those people who have been waiting in camps in

the Horn of Africa, that are not only facing persecution but are facing famine and trying

to feed their children. Prioritise those that are fleeing persecution in Burma, and

maximise the numbers through that process. And that is what our policy is all about.

Simon Birmingham:


23/55


But your policy isn't delivering a regional solution, it's not delivering a regional

processing centre. You have a non-binding, non-legal agreement with Malaysia that

simply allows you to send people there. That's it, it is not a regional solution at all.

Bruce Baird:

That's it. It doesn't set out the protection matters that should be there in terms of

legislation.

Matt Thistlewaite:

But the agreement with Malaysia is also about improving standards in Malaysia and

ensuring that...

Bruce Baird:

But why won't you put in the legislation?

Matt Thistlewaite.

...that people have access to work rights, that people have access to education;

particularly children. Respecting the principles of non-refoulement in the refugee

convention. It's also about improving standards and that's the point...

David Speers:

But none of it is legally binding.

Simon Birmingham:

And once those people go back into Malaysia, once they're there, you won't know who

they are, you won't know where they have gone. No idea.


24/55


Matt Thistlewaite:

It is an agreement between two sovereign governments...

Bruce Baird:

And the two ministers to decide what the standards are.

Matt Thistlewaite.

...to improve the dealing of refugees in this region. And as a part of that process

Australia commits to increasing our intake of refugees to Malaysia. Increasing our

humanitarian intake. And that's what the policy gives priority to.

David Speers:

But the point is, Malaysia's record is clear. We all know asylum seekers have been

treated poorly there. They have been caned, we have seen the footage. How do you

know that every asylum seeker you send there is going to get the safeguards you talk

about.

Bruce Baird:

You don't know, because it's an agreement between the two ministers. And that's the

key thing that's wrong with this piece of legislation. It doesn't set out a criteria of on

what basis these refugees who return are to be protected. It is only on the decision of

the two ministers concerned, has there been a breach of human rights.

Simon Birmingham:

If you are serious about it it would be a bilateral treaty. It would actually go through a

proper treaty making process, there would be some underpinning agreement to it.

David Speers:


25/55


26/55


27/55


Matt Thistlewaite:

No, I haven't. And there has been no talk of a leadership change. Julia Gillard is our

leader, she will lead us to the next election. The Prime Minister said that this is a year

of decisions. And...

Simon Birmingham:

That's what you said about Nathan Reece when you were state secretary too.

Matt Thistlewaite:

Labor's got a significant reform agenda, and there is fundamental reform to oureconomy, to our society with carbon pricing.

David Speers:

I think we have heard this spiel.

Matt Thistlewaite:

All of this is going through parliament at the moment, and once we get these reforms

through I am confident that things will settle down and we will be able to demonstrate

that we are a reforming government and that we have delivered for the people of

Australia.

David Speers:

Can you understand that people are feeling a little bit sceptical because we heard thesame stuff about Kevin Rudd before he was chopped off at the knees.

Bruce Baird:


28/55


29/55



You can't name them, neither can you, neither can you; none of you can. Everybody

speculates every day and no-one can name a single backbencher who's out thereadvocating for a return of Kevin Rudd. It is not a very good campaign if he is running

it.

David Speers:

Well of course they're not going to publicly advocate a return to Kevin Rudd. Let's get

real for a minute, no one is going to publically advocate it.

Simon Birmingham:

Stephen Conroy apparently holds Julia Gillard in complete contempt by all reports.


Oh, yeah, but he clearly holds most people in contempt. I don't think you can read

much into that.

Bruce Baird:

I actually think both of them are decent people, I have got to be honest. I like both of

them. But you've got to say when the polls indicate that if there was a change of leader

you would actually beat the Opposition, which hasn't been the case in terms of polling

for a long while. You can't tell me that people wouldn't say if you're sitting in a

marginal seat as a backbencher: hang on a minute, Kevin is looking very attractive

again.



30/55


31/55



Can I just say plainly, it's none of your business. It's up to Matt and his colleagues who

their leader is going to be.

Simon Birmingham:

Keep her.


The fact that you guys are all bored and you would like a sideshow doesn't mean that

the Labor Party is obliged to give you one.

Bruce Baird:

I would like to put my money on it that the active work is happening in terms who we

are going to change. I would like to put a sizeable amount of money there in saying if

that's not happening there I would just eat my words.

Simon Birmingham:

What are the odds there has been a bit of secret private party polling done that's sitting

in a drawer just to be leaked out at the right moment. That's the way these things

always work.


Every party has that all the time.

Simon Birmingham:

That's right.


32/55


Matt Thistlewaite:

Unfortunately it's becoming an unfortunate characteristic of modern day politics that

when a government has a significant reform agenda, when there may be some...

Bruce Baird:

These are record lows. They are record lows.

Matt Thistlewaite.

...that people start speculating, and it generally comes from the media unfortunately.

They start speculating about leadership.

David Speers:

I am going to go into bat for the media here, because why do you think there is this

problem? Isn't it because of your NSW Labor Party that every time you did run into

trouble you would get rid of a leader, and you did it federally as well.

Matt Thistlewaite:

No, we are concentrating...

Bruce Baird:

A revolving door.

Matt Thistlewaite.

...on the agenda that we have. As the Prime Minister said, it's a year of making

decisions.


33/55


David Speers:

Isn't it the Labor Party's fault, particularly in NSW, that we all react like this?

Matt Thistlewaite:

No, I don't believe it is.

David Speers:

You're the ones who chopped off...


You have got to take responsibility for your own addiction. You can't just blame the

dealer and say "Oh no, no, now I'm hooked I need leadership change or I just can't

keep interested in politics".

David Speers:

But, Cassandra, do you think it's a bit rich to blame the media and the public for raisingleadership questions when Labor gets into trouble, given their record?


I think it's obvious to draw the conclusion that the NSW experience means that people

expect that at the first sign of danger that there will be a leadership challenge. But the

fact is it's only one state, and we did lose, and that has taught us something of a

lesson. I mean, I don't think that you can assume...

Simon Birmingham:

Except at the first sign of danger of course they axed Kevin Rudd, so that state did

transfer to the federal sphere. We have got all the same sorts of people playing there.


34/55


Matt may have backed the wrong candidate for the NSW leadership when he was state

secretary.

Bruce Baird:

The policy issues at play then were of course the whole question of the mining tax -

well it was more the delay in the environmental - the ETS was suddenly put on the

back-burner and down went the polls. So now we have got a policy agenda...

Matt Thistlewaite:

Let's not forget that the Liberal Party is not pure on this as well. I mean, they axed their

leader.

David Speers:

They went through how many in the last term? Three leaders in one term. Let's talk

about some policy then.

Simon Birmingham:

Opposition leaders come and go a little more easily than prime ministers and premiers.

David Speers:

The policy that's cost a few leaders their jobs is of course putting a price on carbon.

The bills for the carbon tax have been debated in parliament this week, the votes in the

lower house will happen next month and then in November in the Senate. The

government released some modelling this week which seems to show the impact won'tbe as bad as you guys have been making out. Do you accept that modelling from

Treasury, that the economy is going to grow, jobs will still be created, the impact on

our incomes is going to be 0.1 of 1% between now and 2050. Have you guys over-

egged the argument?


35/55


Simon Birmingham:

No David, we haven't over over-egged the argument at all. There are two issues at play

here of great significance in terms of the impact of the carbon tax. The first one is,

absolutely, the cost of living pressures you have talked about. And I don't think

anybody in Australia thinks that a 10% increase in the first year on their electricity

prices is not a serious impact. It is a serious impact. It's serious for families, it's serious

for households around the country. It's very serious for small businesses, for the

services sector, for the tourism industry.

David Speers:

To be fair though, why don't you ever talk about the compensation in the next breath

when you say that?

Simon Birmingham:

Because there will still be millions of households who are worse off. And the other key

thing is the government says the compensation will keep up with the tax as it goes up

each year, but they haven't demonstrated how that will happen. When in the end you

have companies by 2020 buying $3.5 billion of permits overseas each year, that

companies still pass those costs onto Australian consumers, that cost of living pressure

is still there in Australia, but the government is not getting that $3.5 billion.

Matt Thistlewaite:

We have said how family pressures will keep pace with the cost of living. We're going

to increase the payments and assistance to families and to pensions as the price

increases during the course of the scheme.

Simon Birmingham:

That's really good for those who are actually on welfare payments, that doesn't actually

of course help all of the Australians who don't receive a pension, don't receive family

benefits payments or the like. There is tax cuts at the very beginning of the package, or


36/55


tax adjustment - because of course some tax rates are going up - but that's it. That's it

after 2015. There is no further promises that...

Matt Thistlewaite:

Households will get assistance to cover them for the cost increases associated with the

scheme.

Simon Birmingham:

That will be eroded as those tax changes are eroded.

Bruce Baird:

Doesn't that show it's a bit of a nonsense anyway? If you're are going to compensate...

Cassandra Wilkinson.

You are both trying to pretend that you can have a policy change without impacting

anybody. Malcolm Turnbull was the only politician who had the guts to say the only way

you make a difference is if people do feel it. If they don't feel it they won't change the

behaviour and the market mechanism will become meaningless. Your party five

minutes ago believed in climate change and thought it was worth doing something

about. Ours did, then we didn't, then we did again. But the fact is we do now again.

Simon Birmingham:

Still do.

Bruce Baird:

Isn't that the way to solve it?


37/55


Simon Birmingham:

We think we should go to the market and find the lowest cost abatement. That's what

we believe we should do.

Matt Thistlewaite:

Simon, that scheme will not work. It will not work.

David Speers:

Simon Birmingham, it's not exactly, what did you say?

Simon Birmingham:

I said we should go to the market and find the lowest cost abatement.

David Speers:

Well the lowest cost abatement is offshore, so why don't you go to the market and buy

some carbon permits offshore?

Simon Birmingham:

Because we think we should actually get the environmental benefit in Australia and

Australia should actually do its part. Not just shove it off to the rest of the world.

David Speers:

Just answer this, do you acknowledge that reducing a tonne of carbon here is the same

of reducing a tonne of carbon in New Zealand or Indonesia?

Simon Birmingham:


38/55


It is absolutely a global problem, and that of course is part of our concern.

David Speers:

So a tonne of carbon is the same here as Indonesia.

Simon Birmingham:

A tonne of carbon is a tonne of carbon in terms of climate change.

David Speers:

If you could pay for a tonne of carbon to come out of the atmosphere by reducing

deforestation in Indonesia, what's wrong with that?

Simon Birmingham:

We actually did an awful lot when we were in government to try to drive policies to

reduce deforestation, because that can make a huge difference to global climate

change.

David Speers:

Why won't do you this under your direct action plan?

Simon Birmingham:

We think that in terms of, to borrow the government's phrase, transforming theAustralian economy to a clean energy future, you actually have to do it here. You don't

transform the Australian economy into a clean energy future by sending billions of

dollars offshore.

Bruce Baird:


39/55


It is kind of something that comes out of the Moscow central branch though. Where is

the free market principles? They are going to spend a truckload of government

money...

David Speers:

That's what the Liberal Party is all about.

Bruce Baird.

...when the market could help solve this. Milton Friedman would die if he could see the

Liberal Party wanting to provide it all by government money, and I'll prove it.

Simon Birmingham:

Milton Friedman would die at the concept of government setting up a process where

Australian companies are buying $3.5 billion worth of permits offshore for action

happening somewhere else in the world.

Matt Thistlewaite:

Simon, you are missing the point. Labor's scheme will work because it will be a cap

and trade scheme. We put a cap on the level of emissions and over time we reduce that

cap. And companies that wish continue to pollute will need to buy the permit. And

companies will do what companies do. They will reduce their costs and they will find a

way to reduce those costs. And they will either do that by introducing new emissions-

friendly technology that reduces their pollution over time, which will see the reduction

in emissions, or they will buy abatement permits. If they can't buy them overseas it

means that the costs are increased for businesses in Australia. Now, that's something

that was admitted last week in a scrutiny of new taxes committee that I'm on by Loy

Yang Power. I asked them: if you cannot source abatement oversees what will that

mean for you? And they admitted it will push up their costs. So they do not support

the Opposition's direction action policy.


40/55


Simon Birmingham:

If you have a carbon tax and you don't let people purchase permits from overseas,

absolutely it will push up their costs. Because of course the price of the carbon tax will

be higher. We're not having a carbon tax though, that's the fundamental point.

Matt Thistlewaite:

We will make the transition to a market-based mechanism by 2015 where companies

will then be able to source abatement permits overseas. And that is based on the

advice of the best economists, the least cost option for our nation.

Simon Birmingham:

Let me ask you one question then...

Matt Thistlewaite:

And the least-cost option for business.

Simon Birmingham.

...if sourcing the permits overseas is such a great thing why have you put a 50% cap on

it?

Matt Thistlewaite:

What?

Simon Birmingham:

If sourcing the permits from overseas is such a great thing, why are you saying they

can only get 50% of them from overseas. Why not buy the whole lot overseas and be

done with it?


41/55


42/55


Simon Birmingham:

It is a fact that in 2020 the modelling says emissions will be higher in Australia than on

the base line. You don't achieve the reduction.

Matt Thistlewaite:

No, the issue is about business as usual, and there will be reduction in the business as

usual scenario under our scheme.

David Speers:

We also saw during the week, and it didn't get much coverage, New Zealand is movingto actually soften their emissions trading scheme, make it a bit weaker under the

conservative government.

Bruce Baird:

It already was pretty weak, wasn't it.

David Speers:

Exactly. Is there really global momentum towards what Australia is doing?

Matt Thistlewaite:

Of course there is global momentum to what we're doing. Almost 90 countries have

signed up to various international conventions, the Kyoto Protocol, the...

David Speers:

That's quite different to actually putting a $23 price on carbon.


43/55


Bruce Baird:

Nobody else has that in the world.

Matt Thistlewaite:

The European Union has an emissions trading scheme.

David Speers:

Do you know what the price is there, the price in Europe there? The price is less than

$23.

Matt Thistlewaite:

By the time we get to a market-based mechanism our price will be commensurate, and

that is the same of the scheme. Our price is aimed to be commensurate with that in

Europe and commensurate with that in New Zealand and other nations.

Bruce Baird:

Why didn't you start off higher and move down?

Matt Thistlewaite:

Because...


It's pretty funny though that all of you this evening have said that you don't think it's

acceptable that Malaysia has different human rights standards than us. We're quite

content to have better human rights standards than the rest of the world but the

minute we want to have better environmental standards suddenly we should wait until

everyone else cleans up first?


44/55


Simon Birmingham:

Our policy does try to have better environmental standards. It tries to ensure actually

that we effect change in Australia. Effect change here to the way we do business.


You are backing a premise that says, oh, well, we're only producing 1% of emissions,

we should really wait until China cleans up their act first.

Simon Birmingham:

No, we say that we should achieve the minimum 5% reduction by 2020.

Bruce Baird:

I believe in the emissions trading scheme.

Cassandra Wilkinson.

...plan to make it happen except to let bureaucrats pick the tech they like best and

invest in it with public money.

Simon Birmingham:

Well, no, that's actually pretty much Labor's plan. The funds they're setting up is to do

that. We will go through a proper tender process.

David Speers:

We need to move on. We're going to take another quick break. We'll be back with

more, stay with us. Welcome back. We're joined this week by Labor Senator Matt

Thistlewaite, former Liberal MP Bruce Baird, former Labor staffer Cassandra Wilkinson,


45/55


and Liberal Senator Simon Birmingham. Wayne Swan, worlds greatest Treasurer.

Bruce Baird, was this a deserved honour?

Bruce Baird:

Look, I just think he did a good job with the GFC. We came out of it pretty well, and I

think it's one area that the government hasn't paid enough attention to promote.

During the last election you didn't hear anything about it, because they were so worried

about how people would think about the knifing of Kevin that they lost sight of it,

because Kevin was part of that. But I think, really, it's about Peter Costello in terms of

the savings he made, the repaying the $100 billion of the previous government debt.


Left by the last world's greatest Treasurer.

Bruce Baird:

Yes, that's right. And Keating did a lot of things in terms of private banks.

David Speers:

Your former colleagues weren't so generous. Joe Hockey called him the Steven

Bradbury, the guy who won the gold medal on skates when everyone fell over, and said

that he was the Steven Bradbury on Peter Costello's skates, and then rattled off

previous winners of this honour from various countries.

Bruce Baird:

It was interesting, I thought Slovakia having it twice, when it's kind of the size of Bondi,

is a little bit curious. But nevertheless, I think it's about we are very lucky in Australia,

we have got a magnificent economy, we are blessed with tremendous resources and it's

about saying "you guys did well".


46/55


David Speers:

Why, Cassandra, doesn't the government get more credit in Australia for economic

management?


Because the previous Labor government - if you wanted to put it that way - the Rudd

Labor government, was so panicked about the GFC that it responded too hard and too

soon, and nobody felt the bite here. You're not going to thank people for preventing

something that it was never clear was ever going to happen. So frankly Australia got off

too lightly on the GFC and we didn't have the crisis that should have been harnessed to

drive greater productivity improvements. We've got an underlying productivity problem,

we've got an underlying structural unemployment problem with our long-termunemployed. The GFC would have been the perfect time to get stuck into those and

say to people reform, bit of pain, we understand we have to strengthen the economy.

All we did was skate past by spending the Future Fund, tapping into the mining income,

and pretending there was nothing to worry about.

David Speers:

Talking about productivity improvements and what to do about it, some in business say

the answer is industrial relations reform, and specifically bringing back individual

contracts.

Bruce Baird:

Interesting question.

David Speers:

Tony Abbott this week said the Coalition does not support individual contracts. But,

Simon Birmingham, some of your colleagues do. Where do you stand on this?

Bruce Baird:


47/55


Support with the leader.

Simon Birmingham:

David, I think one of the great shames of the last few years has been the total

unwinding of industrial relations flexibility. Not just to a pre-WorkChoices status, but to

a status that goes way back beyond basically everything the Howard Government did.

And that's a real problem. And we do need to have genuine reform to get us back into

a more competitive place, with genuine productivity and opportunities.

David Speers:

What's the answer to that question. I just want to get an answer to this question. Doyou support individual contracts?

Simon Birmingham:

I think there are conditions where individual contracts are a reasonable part of the mix.

Now obviously those conditions involve having a strong no disadvantage test. They

involve of course having the appropriate type of arrangements in place that, frankly,

WorkChoices lacked in its first incarnation.

David Speers:

So why did Tony Abbott then say the Coalition does not support them?

Simon Birmingham:

I think we are going through a process of debating of course where we go on thispolicy. There's no secret that this was a difficult policy for us, that we of course lost

votes at the 2007 election because of it, and Tony is dead right to listen to the

electorate and to hear of course the fact that they thought we went too far.


48/55


David Speers:

So it is still an open debate? It is still being debated is what you're saying?

Simon Birmingham:

Tony has said, we take a policy to the next election that achieves greater flexibility.

That is a good thing.

David Speers:

He also said you don't support individual contracts.

Simon Birmingham:

We need to actually take the Australian people with us on this this time. We can't get

out ahead of them with policy that they don't support or we'll never get the type of

changes we need.


That would look like leadership.

Matt Thistlewaite:

What the Australian public need to understand is that flexibility in Liberal Party parlance

is code for reducing entitlements. That's what they did under WorkChoices through

their statutory contracts.

Simon Birmingham:

Here comes the scare campaign.


49/55


50/55


51/55


52/55


53/55


54/55


David Speers:

The criticism has been, Cassandra, specifically that it's disrespectful to the office of

Prime Minister, that it's sexist and that it's not funny.


It is all those things, and the only one that matters is that it's not funny. It's okay to be

disrespectful to the Prime Minister, and it's a blessing to live in a country where you can

be disrespectful to the Prime Minister.

David Speers:

Any arguments with that?

Bruce Baird:

No, no, I just thought it was poor and offensive. If it had been a lot funnier, like 'The

Hollow Men' and so on we would have laughed, but it was done very crassly and I just

think they've got to try a bit harder, get a better script writer.

David Speers:

Have you seen it?

Matt Thistlewaite:

I haven't actually seen it, but there is a great tradition in our country of sending up

prime ministers, I think Cass' point is right. The crucial point is whether or not it's funnyand people see it as entertaining. From what I have been told I don't think this program

meets that mark.

David Speers:


55/55

Date post:	07-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	latika-m-bourke
View:	223 times
Download:	0 times

Bruce Baird - The Nation.

Documents