Transcript of
Senator Mitch Fifield
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary
for Disabilities, Carers and the Voluntary Sector
Sky News AM Agenda
Kieran Gilbert and the Hon Mike Kelly MP
16 November 2009
8:45am
E & OE
Subjects: apology to Forgotten Australians, ETS, asylum seekers
KIERAN GILBERT:
Welcome back to AM Agenda. With me Liberal frontbencher Senator Mitch Fifield and Labor frontbencher Mike Kelly. Gentlemen good morning to you both.
MITCH FIFIELD:
Good morning.
GILBERT:
Mitch first to you, the apology to the forgotten Australians. It is a big day for them more than half a million people affected and it is about time I suppose?
FIFIELD:
It is about time. It’s something that has been eagerly sought by the care leavers, those people who were in institutions, those people who were child migrants. Many of these people had very bad experiences not all did but many did. And a lot of those people are damaged and they are looking for acknowledgement, they are looking for acceptance and I think the apology will go a significant way towards repairing some of that hurt and some of that pain.
GILBERT:
Absolutely, well they say it’s the first part in that healing process. Mike they are also suggesting though that compensation should be paid if they have suffered neglect, abuse or been lied to by the state, why not?
MIKE KELLY:
I think that is something individuals can look at in relation to specific institutions but I think the main thing here is that we have a generation of people who suffered not only from that institutionalising experience but also many of them had traumatic experiences of physical and sexual abuse. And this is about the nation coming together today to particularly help in the healing process, recognising and sharing that pain and helping people to overcome the psychological trauma they went through.
GILBERT:
Senator Fifield on to the other issue that I was discussing with Greg Combet a moment ago, Nick Minchin has said that agriculture is not enough, Barnaby Joyce says he is not going to back in regardless, what’s your view on where things are at, at the moment?
FIFIELD:
Well if you went by the weekend media coverage of the announcement of the exclusion of agriculture you’d have thought that we had peace in our time. The reality is that the Government was always going to exclude agriculture, it was always an ambit claim and it was always going to be the first thing that the Government folded on. So I guess the best thing you can say about the exclusion of agriculture is that it perhaps indicates that the shadow boxing is over and that the serious negotiations will now begin.
GILBERT:
Mike is that true? Greg Combet says that was a significant concession, but the fact is that it was out of the scheme at least until 2015.
KELLY:
Well it was certainly always going to be problematic and it was always going to be looked at in detail in 2013. Obviously there is real issues about how you establish metrics and frameworks to bring agriculture into a scheme like this. I was always of the view personally that it was going to be unlikely that we could come up with a reliable metrics system to do that. Certainly though it is very important that we do concentrate on trying to reduce emissions in the agricultural sector and many of the measures that we can introduce to do that will actually aid in productivity in farms. I have a lot of farmers of course in my region and we talk about that quite a lot. Farmers are the ones who are at the most risk of the effects of climate change so it is important that we tackle the issue, it’s important that we allow them to participate in the credit side of the scheme, because there is a lot that they can do to help diversify their own income by taking advantage of this. Just in my region alone we’ve got probably nearly $900 million of investment in wind farms coming in to the region, so there is a lot of potential in the credit side of this scheme.
GILBERT:
Mitch there is a sense that some, many Liberals don’t want to support this, not just the Nats, but Nick Minchin is not the only one, there is others. How big is that group that don’t want to support this ETS regardless of the outcome of the negotiations?
FIFIELD:
Well the Party Room has collectively reserved its position until the negotiations are complete. Malcolm Turnbull has reserved his position until negotiations are concluded. So we just have to wait and see what the Government brings to us. Agriculture will not be enough. There are a range of other things we are looking for, fugitive emissions, looking at a mechanism to ensure that electricity prices don’t go up by 20 per cent, which they will under the Government’s scheme. We think 5 per cent under our scheme would be better. We’ll wait for them to come back, but…
GILBERT:
But for some, nothing will be enough, nothing will be enough, for some, we’ve heard from them. How big is that group?
FIFIELD:
The National Party have indicated their position clearly. And one or two other colleagues have in relation to that, but we just have to wait and see what the negotiations conclude. But I think the important development is what we have seen at the weekend at the APEC Leaders’ conference. The Government has been banging on about the fact that we desperately need to pass this ETS legislation before Copenhagen because we need to demonstrate by our actions as the rest of the world won’t sign the 200 page draft treaty unless Australia has passed legislation for an ETS. Well that has now been completely shot. The 200 page treaty has been scrapped. What we are now looking at is an eight or nine page document, basically a glorified press release. So the reason we have to pass this ETS legislation is so that Kevin Rudd can go to Copenhagen and say will you please sign up to an eight page press release? Follow our example. I mean that’s ridiculous.
GILBERT:
It’s been watered down Mike, significantly, and I suppose changes the political dynamic doesn’t it, of the ETS debate? When there is no momentum internationally, it’s a real struggle.
KELLY:
It is a struggle. It’s a major international issue, there are lots of problems out there in how we bring along the developing world. But we have to show some leadership, we do have influence in the world, our Prime Minister has shown that in the way he has forged new frameworks in relation to the G20, he’s been invited to be a friend of the chair in Denmark, we have…
GILBERT:
He’ll need every friend he can get at the moment.
KELLY:
Well absolutely this is hard yards but we are not shirking from that task, this is a generational challenge for us. You know we have had previous Australian generations that have had much more difficult challenges to face. The great generation of World War II for example. So we can’t afford to shirk this for the sake of future generations.
GILBERT:
But it looks like that is exactly what is happening. This is now a staging point, this summit, which was being seen as the end point, the commitment, the post Kyoto framework, and it’s nothing of that sort. It is 15 pages or 8, it’s not a substantial document
FIFIELD:
It is a glorified press release.
KELLY:
Well we’ll see what emerges from it but there are going to be steps along the way of this struggle, and it is important that we take early steps, because whatever happens internationally we have to have tailor made national solutions. Every country will have different challenges and dynamics to deal with. And it is important that we take these steps early to give our businesses certainty, because taking steps later will be more costly and our business communities, the Farmers Federation, everyone understands that we need to create those dynamics now so that we are well positioned but also there are big opportunities for us there, we can help to achieve reductions internationally by developing the technologies, the new economy and the new measures that will be needed, and we can take advantage of that. So it is important for Australia to get out there and take the lead and create the opportunities that we need for our own industry.
FIFIELD:
Kieran the argument that this legislation needs to be passed before Copenhagen has been completely shot. There is absolutely no reason not to wait until we know what happens in Copenhagen and for that matter to know what happens in the US…
GILBERT:
But politically for you, and for the Coalition, you’d want to deal with it now, deal with it before the end of the year at least, get it off your plate so you can focus on the economy and in the election year rather than something that divides you.
FIFIELD:
No, we want to do what is right by Australia. We want to do what is right by the world. And you don’t pass flawed legislation simply to get it off the political agenda. That is exactly the wrong thing to do. What you do is you take prudent action, you’re careful, you’re cautious and that means waiting until you know what the rest of the world is going to do.
GILBERT:
So the politics are not playing a part?
FIFIELD:
We’re in the national interest business. Why would we pass this legislation, why would we sign up to something, when we don’t know what the rest of the world is going to do? And we know for a fact that we are not going to know what the rest world is going to do at Copenhagen.
GILBERT:
Let’s hear what Mike has to say.
KELLY:
What the politics of this are about is that we achieved a mandate from the people in 2007 to do something on climate change. In Eden Monaro it’s a huge issue. They sent me to Parliament with the words ringing in my years, do something about climate change. Certainly what’s happening out there is that people want something done, the business community wants something done, and we have to do it.
GILBERT:
Ok. One final issue, we’ve got just a couple of minutes left. The 50 or so asylum seekers aboard the Oceanic Viking remain there. The Prime Minister did not even get a formal meeting with President Yudhoyono at APEC on this.
KELLY:
Well there have been ongoing negotiations with Indonesia on a whole range of fronts to do with this issue, and it’s very complex. There is intelligence aspects, there’s law enforcement aspects, there are surveillance aspects. This is going to be an ongoing struggle over the years to come up with a good regional approach to dealing with this issue.
GILBERT:
Mitch Fifield we have only got about a minute left, I mean your party is divided on this one as well, Petro Georgiou, Judi Moylan, others not happy with your reintroduction of temporary protection visas.
FIFIELD:
Well their views have been known for some time and haven’t changed. But the overwhelming majority of the Party Room think that this policy is great. We are essentially returning to the successful measures that we had in government which stopped the boats coming. Since August last year we’ve seen 50 boats come, 50 people smuggler boats come, 2000 asylum seekers. That was as a direct result of a change in policy by this Government. They changed their language, and they changed their policy. They got rid of the TPVs. Now we’re introducing a safe-haven visa so that for so long as there is danger in the homes of these asylum seekers then they have a safe haven but it doesn’t reward people who come though an unauthorised manner.
KELLY:
Can I just say…
GILBERT:
Very briefly.
KELLY:
This is a joke. Back in 1999 when TPVs we’re introduced, asylum seekers escalated dramatically, in the next two years after October 1999 it went up to eight and a half thousands, this happy-valley visa joke is just a farce.
GILBERT:
Ok. Mike Kelly, Mitch Fifield, great to see you both. Thanks.
FIFIELD:
Thanks Kieran.
KELLY:
Thanks.
ENDS