ABC Lateline Friday Forum, July 4 2014

HOST: Earlier tonight I was joined from Adelaide by the Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health, Labor’s Nick Champion, and in Sydney, the Coalition’s Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications. Gentlemen welcome.

PAUL FLETCHER: Thank you.

NICK CHAMPION: Thanks.

HOST: 150 or so Tamils are said to have been intercepted at sea, trying to make their way to Australia. Paul Fletcher, what does the future hold for those people?

PAUL FLETCHER:

Well as the Immigration Minister has said on a number of occasions this week, we don’t comment on on-water operational matters, and the reason for that is that we don’t want to give people smugglers information which may be of assistance to them. But we are consistently and calmly implementing the policies we took to the 2013 election and we’ve not had a successful people-smuggling venture arrive in Australia since mid-December last year.

HOST:

That doesn’t mean there haven’t been successful departures.

PAUL FLETCHER:

Well we’ve not had a successful people-smuggling venture arrive in Australia since December last year, and that’s the contrast with what we saw under the previous government, when there were some 50,000 who arrived by boat without a visa. And of course, tragically, some 1,200 deaths at sea. So what we are focused on is safety at sea, and of course meeting our international obligations.

HOST:

Nick Champion, the government has stopped the boats. Don’t they deserve credit for that?

NICK CHAMPION:

Well I think the last part of Paul’s answer is the important one, and that is our international requirements, and really at the heart of the refugee convention is an obligation not to return people to persecution, and that would be our main concern. I think, with this speculation about these particular boats, is that people have been very quickly assessed – that’s what’s been alleged – and then returned, potentially, to the Sri Lankan navy, so there are some very real concerns. But I suppose it’s very hard to make judgements about what the government’s doing because of the complete lack of transparency in this area, and that should be of concern to every Australian because we do want to fulfil our obligations under the refugee convention because that is an important set of principles that was handed down after the terrible experiences around the Jewish people in World War II.

HOST:

What of Paul Fletcher’s comment about denying people smuggler’s that information that would potentially assist their operations?

NICK CHAMPION:

Well I think you’ve got to balance these things, and we’ve got to balance, obviously, combatting the people smuggling ventures with, you know, the right of the Australian people to know what the government is doing in their name. And transparency is seen to be a good thing, generally, by politicians in relation to government. It helps the opposition, journalists and the people of Australia hold the government to account. And in this area of all areas, a very contentious area, an area that excites the passions, we’ve got a government that is just snubbing its nose, or thumbing its nose, at democracy, at a basic principle of democracy.

HOST:

Paul Fletcher, why should Australians be denied any information at all about what steps the navy is taking to stop the boats?

PAUL FLETCHER:

Well what you’ve seen from Immigration and Border Protection Minister Scott Morrison over the time that he’s been in that job, and doing a very successful and effective job, he’s been regularly updating the Australian people when there are things to say.

HOST:

When he decides there are things to say.

PAUL FLETCHER:

But the first priority here must be achieving the operational objectives, and so it’s been a consistent policy from the time we’ve come to government that we don’t comment on on-water operational matters, and the reason for that is very clearly because we do not want to share information with people smugglers that might assist them with their illegal trade.

HOST:

Is part of the reason also because potentially the Australian public might not find too palatable the things that are being done at sea?

PAUL FLETCHER:

No, the reason is very clearly about the importance of achieving the operational objectives, and not getting back to the chaotic situation we had under the Labor Party, where first of all we saw the policy flip-flopping back and forth, but secondly we saw some 50,000 boat arrivals, people arriving without a visa, and we saw some 1,200 deaths at sea. So there’s a very clear objective here, which is to give effect to the policies that we took to the 2013 election. We’ve been working through that calmly and consistently, and of course, we will continue with the approach that we don’t comment on on-water operational matters because of the importance of achieving the overall objectives here.

HOST:

Nick Champion, the Senate has denied the government’s attempts to reinstate Temporary Protection Visas so the Immigration Minister is now expected to introduce a new national interest test to assess asylum claims. What’s Labor’s view of that?

NICK CHAMPION:

Well look, what we’ve got is a minister who hides from accountability. He’s potentially placing people back into a very uncertain environment in Sri Lanka, and the government’s own travel advice warns that the security situation in Sri Lanka being unstable, various journalists and other foreign aid workers have been subject of attack and the like. So we’ve got a very strange situation. And on this we’ve got him thumbing his nose at the High Court. So what we’ve got is a minister who hides from the media, who seems to want to go around the basic safeguards in our democracy, and we’ve got an operation that’s shrouded in secrecy, so it’s of great concern to Australians, and it’s not critical to securing our borders. What’s critical to securing our borders is offshore processing.

HOST:

Paul Fletcher, the UNHCR says those who seek asylum should be properly and individually screened for protection needs; if protection issues are raised, they should be properly determined through a substantive and fair refugee status and determination to establish if any of them are at risk of persecution. Can that kind of comprehensive screening take place on the high seas?

PAUL FLETCHER:

Well, the government is of course fully aware of our international obligations under the UN Refugee Convention, and we will meet those obligations and we continue to do so.

HOST:

Do you know personally if the operations that are underway will meet the convention?

PAUL FLETCHER:

The minister, Minister Morrison, as well as the prime minister, have made it clear, as has the foreign minister and other senior ministers, that we are fully aware of our obligations, and that we are and will continue to meet our obligations.

HOST:

Stopping the boats may well have stopped drownings at sea, but how many people will potentially be killed or tortured or persecuted when they return to their countries of origin?

PAUL FLETCHER:

Well, again, can I just repeat the point that we took to the election a series of commitments in relation to border protection and in relation to the issue of people arriving by boat without visas. We did so because of the importance of having an orderly migration program and because of the importance of stopping people dying at sea. 1,200 deaths at sea during the time that Labor was in government. So that is the set of commitments that we’ve taken, including temporary protection visas and offshore processing and where safe to do so turning round boats, those were the policies we took to the election and those are the policies that we’re working calmly and methodically to implement.

HOST:

Nick Champion?

NICK CHAMPION:

Well the concern here is there is no way of testing these claims because the government shrouds everything they do in this veil of secrecy, and we wouldn’t tolerate it in any other area except for maybe a period of war. But I suspect the Curtin was more free with information than this government is. And it’s of great concern to Australians. Offshore processing is important to combat irregular maritime arrivals, but I don’t think we should be shrouding things in secrecy, and I think we should all have grave reservations about, particularly, Tamil refugees being returned back to Sri Lanka, where we know there’s been a very bitter civil war and where the situation has not returned to normal, and the government’s own travel advice that’s issued by DFAT illustrates that point.

HOST:

Now the new Senate sits next week and will include a disparate group of people on the crossbenches. Many have already expressed their concern about parts of the budget. Are you, Paul Fletcher, resigned to the fact that many of the measures, like the Medicare co-payment and the deregulation of university fees just won’t get up?

PAUL FLETCHER:

Well as the prime minister has made clear, as the treasurer has made clear, we intend to work with the Senate, and particularly with the newly arrived senators, to make the case for all of the measures that were contained in our budget.

HOST:

Making the case and having them agree to it are two very different things though, aren’t they?

PAUL FLETCHER:

Well, but what we’ll be doing is working with all of the senators who want to talk to us, to explain to them the reasons why we’ve got these measures. Australia has been –

HOST:

And is there wiggle room to negotiate?

PAUL FLETCHER:

Australia has been in an unsustainable position, and you’ve got the Labor government –

HOST:

You don’t have to make the case to me, you have to make the case to them. And what I’m asking you, and I’m sure they’re very well aware of your position, what I’m asking you is, is there wiggle room to negotiate and make changes so they do eventually pass?

PAUL FLETCHER:

We will negotiate and engage with all of the senators, all of the democratically elected senators, every one of them has a vote of equal value. When the Labor Party has gone back on $5 billion worth of measures that it included in its 2013-14 budget, and is now saying ‘We will not pass this legislation even though we assumed those savings in our budget.’ When the Greens are refusing to support a measure to return indexation to fuel excise when that has always been their policy, that extraordinary opportunism and irresponsibility that we’re facing, we will deal with all of the senators in the Senate. We’ll do so in a courteous fashion, and we will engage with them in a way that makes the case for the changes in, for the budget measures, because they’re so important to get Australia off an unsustainable spending path and get the budget back under control.

HOST:

Nick Champion, the Treasury Secretary Martin Parkinson and Glenn Stevens, the governor of the Reserve Bank, have both publicly supported the budget, and they’ve said it’s broadly sensible. Is Labor honestly concerned about issues of fairness, or is the opposition to the budget really just about political point-scoring?

NICK CHAMPION:

Well this is a very brutal budget, and it’s a budget without a mandate, without an electoral mandate.

HOST:

But two of the country’s top public servants in the Treasury and Reserve Bank entirely disagree with you.

NICK CHAMPION:

Well both of those individuals are not elected, they’re appointed. With all due to respect to them, they’re not politicians.

HOST:

Well they both served under Labor as well, are you saying they’re partisan?

NICK CHAMPION:

I’m not saying they’re partisan, but what I’m saying is, this is a budget that has to be decided upon in the Senate. And it has to be decided upon on whether it’s fair. And there’s very Australians who would assert that the $7 co-payment, which is $7 every time you see a doctor, every time you get a blood test, every time you’ve got multiple trips to the doctor you pay 7 plus 7 plus 7, there are very few Australians who think that’s anything but an assault on Medicare, on universal health care, on one of the things that has made this country a fair and equitable place that fits in with our national character of having a fair go, and this government wants to shred it, wants to shred it without an electoral mandate. So there’s that, there’s the assault on families, there’s the cuts in the various areas to health, education, $80 billion worth of cuts, all without an electoral mandate. And this government expects the Senate to sort of, you know, just vote it through. Well I think they’re in for a rude shock. The people of Australia look very dimly on this budget. The fact that it’s still being discussed around barbeques and kitchen tables all over this country is very bad news for the government, and I doubt very much whether the Senate will get on board with such a disastrous budget.

HOST:

The barbeques and kitchen tables you’re around, Paul Fletcher, what are they saying there?

PAUL FLETCHER:

I think the people I talk to recognise that Labor left Australia in an unsustainable financial position with deficit after deficit after deficit, including a $50 billion deficit in 2013-14.

HOST:

Is that what the people in your electorate are focussed on in this budget?

PAUL FLETCHER:

The people I talk to are certainly very concerned about the financial sustainability of the Australian government, and how do we continue to afford things like Medicare. Now Medicare is not under threat, but what is important is that it be sustainable, so that’s why we have proposed the particular co-payment measure.

HOST:

And yet the co-payment money is going into a medical research fund. If it was about sustaining the health care budget, wouldn’t it be going into consolidated revenues?

PAUL FLETCHER:

And that research fund will build up over time to a peak of to reach $20 billion. It will roughly double the amount of money going into medical research in Australia every year. Australia has a good track record in medical research. We’ve got five Nobel laureates over time. And we also have a good record of commercialising medical research with companies like Cochlear and ResMed and so on. So this is a terrific initiative which is about increasing our research capacity but also our capacity to commercialise what we develop in this country, and there’s nothing more important than being and continuing to be a knowledge economy as well as all of our other strengths, and this is a terrific measure to address those issues.

HOST:

We’re almost out of time. One more issue that has dominated the news this week and that is the Commonwealth Bank chief’s apology to customers who lost millions of dollars after being given bad advice from the CBA’s financial planners. Do the measures Ian Narev outlined obviate the need for a royal commission, Nick Champion?

NICK CHAMPION:

Well look I think the government’s shown a propensity to have royal commissions and they should give this area proper consideration. We’ve had a very important Senate report led by Senator Williams, a National Party senator, calling for this measure, and I think the level of concern in the public about, in this case, losses in these various financial scandals does merit consideration of a royal commission. The other thing the government shouldn’t be doing is scrapping the very sensible reforms we put in around the Future of Financial Advice in the last parliament. They shouldn’t be scrapping those reforms.

HOST:

I don’t think it’s quite right to say they’re scrapping them.

PAUL FLETCHER:

We’re certainly not scrapping them, and Nick knows that is absolutely not correct. But the key point is –

NICK CHAMPION:

Well why change them at all?

PAUL FLETCHER:

Because we need to get the right balance between consumer protection – and we’re maintaining very strong consumer protection – but not having unnecessary red tape. So that’s why we’re making some relatively minor changes. But the best interest duty, for example, is absolutely remaining, section 96(B)(1) of the Corporations Act. But the key point on the Commonwealth Bank this week, they have come out now and announced their Open Advice Review. That’s an appropriate thing to do, it’s a shame it took them as long as it did. But they now have got their process in place, including an independent panel to review –

HOST:

That doesn’t mean we no longer need a royal commission.

PAUL FLETCHER:

Well what the Senate report said was that there could be a case for another review including potentially a royal commission. It’s a very detailed report. We first want to look at the details of that report. And obviously, we want to look at how the Commonwealth Bank goes with this process. We expect it be a thorough and fair process. That’s what we will be looking to them to deliver. So Mathias Coorman as the relevant minister has said he first wants to look at the report in detail, and also look at what the Commonwealth Bank does.

HOST:

Okay, we’re out of time. Gentlemen, thank you both very much.

PAUL FLETCHER and NICK CHAMPION:

Thanks.