Senator Mitch Fifield
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary
for Disabilities, Carers and the Voluntary Sector
Sky News AM Agenda
Kieran Gilbert and David Bradbury MP
8 June 2009
8:30am
EO & E
Subjects: ministerial reshuffle, Fitzgibbon, ETS, economy
KIERAN GILBERT:
Good morning and welcome to AM Agenda. Factional paybacks or promotions on merit? This morning on the program we are going to look at the Rudd Government’s Ministerial frontbench which is to be sworn in tomorrow. Helping me to do that is the Labor MP, the Member for Lindsay David Bradbury and Liberal frontbencher Mitch Fifield. Both of our guests this morning joining me from Sydney. Gentlemen good to see you both.
MITCH FIFIELD:
Good morning Kieran.
DAVID BRADBURY:
Good morning Kieran.
GILBERT:
David first to you. The new ministerial line-up, what does it say about the government’s priorities? Is this about putting the government on an election footing with the focus on jobs and infrastructure?
BRADBURY:
I think that’s right Kieran. Certainly the focus of what has been achieved with this relatively minor reshaping of the Ministry is to bring into sharp focus the government’s priorities of supporting locals jobs through the global recession, through our investment in nation-building infrastructure. We see front and centre of these changes is a real focus on jobs whether it be through the elevation of Mark Arbib and bringing into alignment his existing responsibilities in relation to government service delivery with the employment participation responsibilities. Whether it be the promotion of Jason Clare as Parliamentary Secretary for employment, we’re seeing a real focus. Maxine McKew now in the infrastructure delivery Parliamentary Secretary’s role, assisting Anthony Albanese. We see that the government is focused on supporting local jobs through our investment in nation building infrastructure.
GILBERT:
Well Joe Hockey had his spin on the Cabinet reshuffle. He was on the Nine network yesterday. Lets recap a little bit of what Joe Hockey had to say.
SHADOW TREASURER JOE HOCKEY:
There seems to have been a lot of payback by Mr Rudd to key faction chiefs. Chris Bowen bungled FuelWatch, GroceryWatch and the employee share scheme initiative in the budget, and yet gets rewarded with a very senior cabinet post. Mark Arbib, the architect of the NSW Labor Government gets rewarded with promotion.
GILBERT:
And that is true, isn’t it, David Bradbury? That Mark Arbib of course was a key player in helping Kevin Rudd get the leadership in the first place. Is there any element of a factional payback in this?
BRADBURY:
Well look Mark Arbib’s clearly been a very strong performer since he’s been in the Parliament. Having been elected in the Senate he came into the Parliament a little bit later than the crop of 2007 MPs, but in the short time that he’s been in that role, and I’m sure that Mitch could attest to this, he’s been a great performer, he’s been a very strong and effective advocate of the government’s position on a range of matters. But I think what has distinguished him and what he’s been recognised for with this promotion is the great work that he has been doing in relation to government service delivery bringing a focus on the more than 70% of our stimulus measures that is the infrastructure investment, the nation building investment of the Rudd Government. He’s done a very good job there and clearly his efforts in such a short space of time are being recognised and I think giving him the additional responsibilities in relation to employment participation will really allow the government to continue to prosecute our agenda when it comes to supporting local jobs through our nation building investment.
GILBERT:
Senator Fifield was your Liberal colleague Joe Hockey being a bit tough, a bit mean on your normal sparring partner Mark Arbib?
FIFIELD:
Not at all. I think Joe was being extremely fair. We all know that Mark can talk. We now have to wait and see if Mark can actually deliver. David described this reshuffle as minor. Kevin Rudd described it as modest. This is a very significant and wide-ranging reshuffle, there are something of the order of 35 changes in this reshuffle. And there were two objectives that Kevin Rudd had. The first was to solve some embarrassing situations amongst his ministry. Firstly with Joel Fitzgibbon who just had to go. It was long overdue, he wasn’t up for it, he should have been gone three or four months back. And also Jan McLucas who had her own particular challenges and issues. This was an opportunity for Kevin Rudd to solve those two problems. But he also had the objective of rewarding a group of people. He wanted to give something to the ACTU. That was satisfied with Greg Combet’s elevation. He wanted to do something for the NSW right. That was solved by Mark Arbib and Jason Clare’s promotion. But this isn’t a reshuffle which is based on merit, which is based on talent. Maxine McKew wouldn’t have been promoted if that was the case. I think she probably would be better to be called Maxine Who. We basically haven’t heard from her since she was elected. And also the promotion of the Sports Minister Kate Ellis. I don’t think Kate Ellis has exactly set the world on fire. And as Joe Hockey mentioned, Chris Bowen, the guy who bungled FuelWatch, GroceryWatch and the employee share scheme in the last budget. This isn’t the ministry of all the talents. This is a reshuffle which is designed to reward people and designed to appease particular sectional interests such as the ACTU.
GILBERT:
The Treasurer Wayne Swan was asked about the new Ministerial members, the new frontbench members at the weekend, lets hear a little bit of what the Treasurer had to say.
TREASURER WAYNE SWAN:
There is a real focus here on jobs but I think it also demonstrates the depth of talent in the Government.
GILBERT:
The Treasurer Wayne Swan on the Ten Network on the weekend. David Bradbury if it was about the depth and the talent in the party should some people be a bit disappointed, people like Bill Shorten for example, talked about as a potential future leader when he entered the Parliament. He’s been overtaken here into the Ministry by a few others that arrived at the same time, some later than him to the Parliament.
BRADBURY:
Look Kieran let me preface my comments by saying I take issue with what Mitch has said in relation to some of the individuals that have been promoted whether it be Maxine McKew, Chris Bowen or Kate Ellis I think they’ve all been performing very well and I think the strength of the response from the Opposition really does tell you a little bit about how concerned they are about the way in which this minor reshaping of the Ministry has really strengthened the government’s focus on some of the key issues that we will be taking to the next election. But in relation to the issue of depth that you raised Kieran. Clearly we are in a very fortunate position I think as a backbencher, someone that has come into this parliament at the 2007 election. I look around and I see great talent within our ranks. I see individuals such as Bill Shorten who I think has done a tremendous job as Parliamentary Secretary particularly in relation to disabilities…
GILBERT:
But he hasn’t been promoted on this occasion. Do you think he would be disappointed? I mean they talk about him as a potential future leader.
BRADBURY:
Well look Kieran you can’t promote everyone at any given point in time but I think what we do have is we have a good symmetry between the positions available and the people that we have in those positions and right across the spectrum we are very much geared up as a government towards focusing on the key issues. And the key issue for us is jobs. It’s about supporting local jobs in our communities and whether that be through the various portfolios that have been filled in this latest reshaping in the ministry or not, it’s about ensuring that we are geared up to deliver for the Australian community. Now it is easy for us to get a little bit sidetracked by the personalities at stake here, but the reality is that for most people sitting in their living rooms, the real issue for them is how the government confronts the global recession. And I think frankly, the decisions that have been taken in this reshaping of the ministry will only provide people with even greater confidence that we are very much focused on the key issues affecting them.
GILBERT:
Ok. Julie Bishop is one of the, well the Deputy Leader in the Liberal Party. She was on the Sunday Agenda program yesterday speaking to Helen Dally and she had her take on the way that this new Rudd Government team has been made up. Let’s recap a little bit now of what Julie Bishop told Helen Dally.
DEPUTY LIBERAL LEADER JULIE BISHOP:
I would suggest that the government should always promote on merit and there clearly were some women who should have been promoted but again they’re not in the NSW Right faction so they were not rewarded.
GILBERT:
Isn’t it a bit rich Mitch Fifield for Julie Bishop to be criticising the female representation when the Rudd Government has a lot more women in it than the Howard Government did and in senior ranks, including of course the Deputy Prime Minister?
FIFIELD:
Well the Howard Government has a very strong record in promoting women. We had Jocelyn Newman, Amanda Vanstone, Helen Coonan. We had competent women in very senior Cabinet positions and Malcolm Turnbull has also made a point of ensuring we have the best talent on our frontbench and we have a very strong representation from amongst our female members. I just want to pick up on something David said in relation to Bill Shorten. I think Bill Shorten would be very unhappy today. We’ve heard a lot about Bill Shorten, the rising Labor star. It’s almost as though it’s a hyphenated name, you know Bill Shorten-rising Labor star-future Prime Minister. I think he would be very disappointed and I think Kevin Rudd was sending a very loud and clear message to Bill Shorten. Now I’m not sure what Bill’s done but the Prime Minister was clearly sending him a message. David also…
GILBERT:
I just want to get you back, I want to get you back on that issue of female representation because we’ve got to get to the, look at the overall numbers that have been represented here and as I said the Rudd Government’s cabinet has got more women than any government before it, including the Howard Government. I’m just talking about accountability here if Julie Bishop is going to make that criticism, isn’t it right for the Liberals to say then, alright, we should lift our game in terms of female representation as well?
FIFIELD:
I think the important thing is that you appoint people on the basis of talent. And the point that Julie was raising is that you shouldn’t let issues of factionalism override other considerations. And if you let factionalism be the dominant consideration when you appoint your front bench, it means that you are going to rule our people who should be there on the basis of merit and that includes women who should be there on the basis of merit. That was the point that Julie was making. And certainly on the Coalition side we will always have merit as the overriding consideration.
GILBERT:
I want to look at the, look at quickly gentlemen, we’ve got a fair bit to get through but I want to look at the outgoing Minister Joel Fitzgibbon, the issues surrounding the appointment of the new Defence Minister. David Bradbury did you feel for Joel Fitzgibbon last week, did you think it was appropriate the way it was handled?
BRADBURY:
Look I think that Joel took the decision that he believed to be in the best interests of the government and therefore in the best interests of the Australian people. Look there were a number of factors that lead to this. I think that whilst Joel Fitzgibbon has stood down as a Minister he will be able to reflect upon a fairly significant record as a Minister for Defence. Some of the things that he has set in train in relation to a fairly significant if not one of the most significant reforms of Defence in Australia’s history is something that he would be very proud of. But clearly it is unfortunate to lose a Minister in the circumstances that we have. I think that it was a succession of issues that ultimately lead Joel to that position.
GILBERT:
In blaming Judases in his midst, he was blaming traitors in the Department and even in his own office, it wasn’t the best finish to the ministerial career. I mean he might come back some time down the track but in terms of this, his departure this time around to be blaming traitors in his midst in wasn’t a good look, and what does it say about the government if that is the case that one of their Ministers has been dragged down by people, traitors?
BRADBURY:
Look clearly Joel was very upset in the circumstances and he expressed his view in relation to a number of these issues but I think so far as the government is concerned our focus is on moving forward and I think the appointment of Senator John Faulkner into the Defence Ministry role is a significant step for the government to have taken. I think that his background, his history in that portfolio and around that portfolio means that he is one of the most qualified people to take on that role. And I think that what it does say as we move forward is that the government has taken that decision to out, the Prime Minister has taken the decision to put Senator Faulkner in that role, it is an important role and I think…
GILBERT:
Should he have done that from the outset then, was it a mistake to put Joel Fitzgibbon to the Defence Ministry, was he just not up to it?
BRADBURY:
Yeah, no I think, I don’t think that there were any mistakes made in that regard but clearly in the current circumstances I think it’s a decision that’s been universally welcomed right across the spectrum of stakeholders and right throughout the Australian community. I think people think that at this point in time the decision the Prime Minister has taken to appoint Senator Faulkner is the right decision and I think that there are very few people out there that have the capabilities that Senator Faulkner has to do the job as well as I certainly hope, and I think the government believes that he will do in the future.
GILBERT:
Julie Bishop was discussing the same issue the challenges before John Faulkner. She was on the Sunday Agenda program.
DEPUTY LIBERAL LEADER JULIE BISHOP:
He does face significant challenges. The first I would suggest is to restore the trust between the Ministers office and the Department. And secondly and most importantly to restore morale within the Defence forces.
GILBERT:
Senator Fifield what did you make of John Faulkner’s appointment, you’ve watched him for many years in the upper house, what did you make of it?
FIFIELD:
John Faulkner is a very capable individual, there is no doubt about that. He’s had significant responsibilities in the Australian Labor Party. But this will be the first serious operational portfolio that John Faulkner has had. He was Environment Minister, an important policy portfolio but he has never really had his hands on the nuts and bolts of a serious budget with serious operational responsibilities. So it will be interesting to see how Senator Faulkner handles that particular challenge. I’ll admit John is a great contrast to Joel Fitzgibbon. I don’t think Joel Fitzgibbon has anyone but himself to blame for the situation that he got himself into. Kevin Rudd should have never appointed Joel Fitzgibbon to that position in the first place. I know David said that he didn’t think that was a mistake but I think that Labor members in their quieter moments would reflect and say that he never should have been appointed to that position in the first place. He just wasn’t up to the job. But John Faulkner’s big challenge is the Whitepaper. The Government haven’t said how the ambitious reform program, the ambitious defence asset acquisitions are going to be paid for and that’s one of the first things that John Faulkner has to do, is to actually say where the money is going to come from.
GILBERT:
Ok well stay with us after the break on AM Agenda, we are going to look at the broader economic debate. Stay with us.
BREAK
GILBERT:
Welcome back to AM Agenda. With me this morning on the program is the Liberal frontbencher Mitch Fifield and the Labor member for Lindsay David Bradbury. Gentlemen the independent Senator Steve Fielding, or the Family First Senator Steve Fielding, has come back from the United States. He went to a climate change conference there, a climate-sceptics conference and he has written in The Australian newspaper today “We need a rigorous debate on whether carbon dioxide or the sun is driving global warming before we vote on the ETS.” David, first to you, the Government’s chances of getting it through the Senate are doomed, aren’t they, the Emissions Trading Scheme, if that’s the view of one of the key cross-benchers?
BRADBURY:
Well look clearly it’s not the view of the government that’s a debate that has not yet been resolved in terms of the science behind climate change. We certainly take on board the advice of the overwhelming majority of scientists in this particular field that have established a link between carbon emissions and climate change. Notwithstanding that it is our focus as the climate change, the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme bills move through to the Senate to work with all Senators to try and secure passage of the bills. Clearly if Senator Fielding is raising issues of this sort then it is going to be a difficult job for us but we are determined to working as hard as possible to addressing the issues that are raised by all of the Senators from the minor parties to try and address this issue.
GILBERT:
Senator Fifield what did you make of it, the piece, the comments from Steve Fielding that he is having doubts as to whether the CO2 is responsible for climate change?
FIFIELD:
I think in our society we don’t want to be in a situation where if someone disagrees with a point of view that someone else has that you point the finger and call them a heretic. We want to be a society where we encourage critical thought and healthy scepticism, so Steve is certainly entitled to his view. But I think it is important that we give the planet the benefit of the doubt, pursuing the insurance principle to guarantee against climate change, if indeed it is as much of an issue as the scientific evidence is indicating. What the government needs to do in the current situation is sit down with the Opposition. David said that the legislation is looking a bit rocky. Well it doesn’t need to be rocky. The government needs to take I think the Opposition’s very sensible suggestions which are firstly, to refer it to the Productivity Commission so that we can actually have an analysis of the impacts on employment of the current ETS scheme as designed by this government. And also so that we can look at the alternatives. Is there a better way of reducing carbon emissions that will have less of an impact on the economy? So the government should firstly take that recommendation. The second thing the government should do is delay a vote on their legislation. We should wait until after Copenhagen and wait until we know what the United States is going to do, so that we can make a decision in relation to the ETS with all the information. But I think the difficulty for the government is the fact the ETS has become an end in itself. Now the ETS isn’t an end in itself, it is a mechanism to reduce emissions and if there is a better way of reducing emissions, a way of reducing emissions by more and at less cost to the economy and at less costs to jobs then we should look at that.
GILBERT:
Mitch we saw last week, this is more broadly on the economy here, we saw the positive growth numbers out last week. Access Economics is revising down its forecast on unemployment to, it’s now expecting unemployment to peak at 7.5% that’s good news and it seems that the stimulus, the governments stimulus has worked and just briefly we’re almost out of time but I just want to get your thoughts on that and then get David Bradbury’s response to it.
FIFIELD:
Growth is good news and I hope Access Economics is right that unemployment doesn’t rise by as much as the government forecasts that it will. But I don’t think the government can take any credit for the growth number that we saw the other day. We’ve got to appreciate the limits of fiscal stimulus. Fiscal stimulus can only make a difference at the margins. If Australia was destined to go into a deep and prolonged recession no amount of fiscal stimulus would stop that happening. And if Australia does avoid recession it won’t be thanks to the government’s fiscal stimulus it will be because of the economic fundamentals of the Australian economy. So I think it is a bit rich for the government to be claiming victory and to be claiming credit for the growth numbers the other day.
GILBERT:
Ok David just quickly, your response, we are almost out of time.
BRADBURY:
Kieran no one is claiming credit but what we are saying is that the figure that counts here is the 0.6% increase in household expenditure. We are the only country in the advanced world where we are seeing an increase in household expenditure. You’ve got to ask the question why? It’s because of the government’s stimulus measures. What we will see from here on is the other 70% of the measures, our investment in nation building infrastructure, and these are the factors that are going to give our economy the best possible chance to come through the biggest global recession in 75 years stronger than any other economy in the world.
GILBERT:
David Bradbury and Senator Mitch Fifield appreciate you coming in on this public holiday and thanks for your time on the program.
FIFIELD:
Pleasure Kieran.
BRADBURY:
Good to be here Kieran.
ENDS