27 September, 2010
Sky News AM Agenda
Kieran Gilbert and Senator The Hon Kate Lundy
27 September 2010
8:40am
E & OE
Subjects: Carbon tax committee, parliamentary reform, Mr Tony Crook, Commonwealth Games, The Lodge
KIERAN GILBERT:
Joining me now on the program the Parliamentary Secretary for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, Senator Kate Lundy, good morning senator.
KATE LUNDY:
Good morning Kieran.
GILBERT:
And the Shadow Disabilities Minister and Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate, Mitch Fifield, Senator thank you for your time.
MITCH FIFIELD:
Good morning Kieran.
GILBERT:
I want to get you to respond to some of the comments made by Greg Combet there. The different political landscape, that’s the justification the Government is using for its change in language when it comes to a carbon tax. But you can’t really argue that the Government hasn’t supported a price on carbon for some time?
FIFIELD:
Well ‘change of political landscape’ is code for ‘we’re going to break our promise.’ And saying that ‘we need to have regard to the range of views in the Parliament’ is code for ‘we’re going to do what the Greens want.’ This Government went to the polls with a very clear position that they were not going to have a carbon tax. That was the only thing that was clear about their carbon policy. We weren’t sure exactly when there was going to be an ETS, that was going to be in the never-never sometime after 2013. But the one thing that Julia Gillard was crystal clear about was that they were not going to have a carbon tax.
GILBERT:
Alright Kate Lundy, you’ve heard that comment and other statements by the Opposition. Was it silly to rule out a carbon tax when it has been, a carbon price, has been such a core part of the Labor belief. Although they, the Government dropped the ball to some degree in the last term.
LUNDY:
Well I wouldn’t agree with that statement either. And what we’re doing now is what we said we would do in the election campaign which is form a committee on climate change. I know Greg Combet has said today that the announcement of that is imminent. But that’s exactly what we said we would do before the election…
GILBERT:
It was a very different sort of committee though, wasn’t it?
FIFIELD:
The committee came after the election. Before the election it was a people’s forum.
LUNDY:
Well either way we need to rebuild a consensus and I think the important thing here is we are honouring that commitment. We need to have a conversation in the broader community. We’d like to have a cross-party committee to progress that conversation and I think it’s precisely right. The landscape has changed. That’s entirely legitimate…
GILBERT:
The point is, before the…
LUNDY:
It’s not about breaking a promise it’s about doing something about it in the current political environment.
GILBERT:
But before the election it was a people’s forum, a committee if you want to describe it like that. But it’s a very different set of circumstances that you’re using after the election, isn’t it? It’s a politicians and experts forum.
FIFIELD:
It’s been shrunk. The committee has been shrunk.
LUNDY:
The Opposition can’t have it both ways here. They were very happy to criticise the people’s forum during the course of the campaign. And what Labor is doing is responding to it and establishing a climate change committee that will be able to progress what we feel is a broad community consensus to take action on climate change.
GILBERT:
Okay are you worried that you could be left out of that consensus with the likes of Marius Kloppers coming out, other business leaders endorsing that view, and indeed the Treasury blue book which was provided for the Coalition had you won office had said that the direct action plan that you put forward wasn’t good enough. That it wasn’t going to meet the target of 5% by 2020.
FIFIELD:
I don’t think there is a consensus for a great big new tax. People are citing Marius Kloppers quite a bit now and we see Julia Gillard today saying that we need to have certainty. Well…
GILBERT:
But the Treasury is…what about the Treasury advice Mitch?
FIFIELD:
But there’s one thing better than the certainty of a great big new tax and that is the certainty that there won’t be one. If Julia Gillard wants to provide certainty she can say ‘we’re not going to introduce a carbon tax because we actually promised we wouldn’t before the election. And we won’t introduce an ETS either.’
GILBERT:
You’re someone who has worked in the area. You respect Treasury. They say that you need to act sooner rather than later.
FIFIELD:
Well Treasury don’t always get everything right. They’re good guys and girls. They’re clever people. But they don’t get everything right. And they are not the oracles of what is good policy in the interests of the Australian people. Political parties put themselves forward at election with an agenda. We like the Treasury, but Treasury don’t run for office. The Labor Party did. The Coalition did. We had a clear plan for direct action. We would like to see that implemented. Labor had a clear plan not to have a carbon tax. Labor are breaking their word. They should go back and honour their commitment to the Australian people which was ‘no carbon tax.’
GILBERT:
Kate Lundy are you hopeful that this new political landscape of course with the Greens in the upper house, but also the two country independents in the lower house, Windsor and Oakeshott, that they might fall in behind you on this issue? That they, what’s the sense you’re getting from them?
LUNDY:
The difference between them and of course the Opposition is they want to talk about this. They’re prepared to put Australia’s interests first. Not resort to, I think, quite pitiful slogans about a great big new tax. This issue is a serious one. We know, and the business community knows, I think the broad community knows, we have to address it now. We are committed to putting a price on carbon. We’ve said that all along. And now we need to rebuild the community consensus. There’s only one group I can see out there that’s playing a wrecking role rather than a constructive role in being part of the solution and that’s the Opposition. That’s Tony Abbott and the Liberal Party and the National Party.
GILBERT:
Okay Kate Lundy, Mitch Fifield, stay with us. We’re going to take a quick break on AM Agenda. We’ll be right back.
Break
Welcome back to AM Agenda. With me this morning the Shadow Disabilities Minister, Mitch Fifield and the Parliamentary Secretary for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, Kate Lundy. Kate Lundy, on the issue of Speaker and Deputy Speaker, is the Labor Party still looking for a Liberal defector that might come and serve as Deputy?
LUNDY:
Well we’re supporting Harry Jenkins now and we understand the Opposition will as well. So I think that the fact that the Opposition backed away from a signed agreement is a signal that they are wreckers not builders. I think they’re not even prepared to stand by that shows that with Tony Abbott it’s back on. Now we can’t even trust what he puts in writing which he made a big show about during the election campaign.
GILBERT:
What about the Deputy Speakership position? You did think you had Alex Somlyay as the Deputy on Friday. He changed his mind on Saturday. Are you still looking for a Coalition defector there?
LUNDY:
Well I think there are still conversations occurring with that. And I think, as a few of my colleagues have already said this morning, it’s going to be a very interesting place on the floor of Parliament tomorrow.
GILBERT:
Senator Fifield, if Alex Somlyay did go ahead with that deal, he essentially on Friday told me in a phone conversation that he was going to back the Government on confidence motions and on budget supply bills. Saturday he issued a statement saying no, he’s had a change of heart, he didn’t want to be seen as a Liberal rat. If he did go ahead with that in the partyroom it would have been awkward today, wouldn’t it?
FIFIELD:
Alex has always been a team player. He was a distinguished Coalition Whip. And his role there was party discipline. So I always would’ve been amazed had Alex done anything other than what the Coalition partyroom wanted.
GILBERT:
But do you think that that was partly because he lost the job as Opposition Whip or was it, he said that it was about, he wanted to enforce and help introduce further parliamentary reform in the position of Deputy Speaker. Was there some resentment, do you think, the fact that he lost the job as Opposition Whip?
FIFIELD:
Alex is his own person. He makes up his own mind. But ultimately he’s a Coalition man. He’s a team player. And he’s demonstrated that.
GILBERT:
Okay, and so the Government has changed, well you’ve back flipped now in terms of offering the Deputy Speakership to the Coalition. Why is that?
LUNDY:
Well we’re just trying to navigate and create a stable government. What we’ve been dealing with, with the backing out of the deal with the Opposition that they signed to be able to pair the Speaker is quite an extraordinary state of affairs. I don’t want to underplay it for a second. Tony Abbott signed that piece of paper. He’s now dishonouring the agreement to allow the Speaker to be paired. So that really puts the whole, I think, negotiation and discussion in perspective. We can’t trust them as far as we can go…
GILBERT:
…Well as Anthony Albanese says, you can’t have your cake and eat it too, is what he said yesterday on Channel Nine. So you can’t back out of the agreement to pair the Speaker then expect to have the Deputy role.
FIFIELD:
Firstly can I say I think it’s terrific that the Labor Party have finally decided to back their own Speaker, Harry Jenkins. Something which we were always happy to do. So it’s great that there’s support from both sides for Harry. When it comes to the position of Deputy Speaker, and the issue of pairing, we actually happen to think that the Constitution does matter. And the Constitution is clear that the Speaker does not get a deliberative vote. That he shall not vote unless it’s a tied vote. So as a matter of logic you cannot give a pair to someone who doesn’t have a vote. So we think it’s important that there’s full confidence in the validity of all votes in the Parliament. We’re surprised that Labor don’t have those concerns. But that’s our first priority.
GILBERT:
Do you think it’s fair enough though that in that context, if that deal crumbles that then you should not expect to have the Deputy Speakership given that you’ve backed out of that part of the agreement? That the Government should not necessarily be required to go ahead with the other part of that deal?
FIFIELD:
Well we support the parliamentary reform agreement and we assume Labor does as well…
LUNDY:
Except the bit that you don’t agree with.
FIFIELD:
We support all of it except that part of it which is contrary to the Constitution, which is more than a debating point…
LUNDY:
You still signed it though.
FIFIELD:
…and now that it’s clear that that’s the case we would think that the Government as well should also be fully in favour of making sure that the Constitution is fully upheld.
GILBERT:
So for those that are watching this, Kate Lundy, the viewers that heard about the gentler, kinder way of doing business. It seems to have gone by the wayside very very quickly before the Parliament even begins.
LUNDY:
And it has for one reason and that’s because Tony Abbott has decided to be a wrecker. He has an opportunity to participate in the parliamentary reform process. But right at the start, right when the starting whistle blew, he backed away from that. So I think it’s, even though Senator Fifield might be completely sincere in his support of the Constitution and his claim that it’s unconstitutional, right at the start Tony Abbott signed that agreement. He’s backing away from it. That gives everybody I think in Australia a taste of what’s to come. We have a wrecker as a Leader of the Opposition not a builder.
FIFIELD:
Well we support parliamentary reform and there are some very good things that have come out of that agreement but we also have a couple of other roles. We’re also a political party and the opening part of our party’s constitution is that our objective is to win and hold government. Why? Because we happen to believe that our world view and our governing philosophy delivers better outcomes for the Australian people.
GILBERT:
But what about the language before the deal was done with the independents. It was, you know, we want this parliament to survive. We don’t want another election. But now you’re saying ‘well, let’s do it.’
FIFIELD:
Not at all. I’m saying we’re a political party so obviously we would like to be in government. The second part of our role is to be an opposition. The Westminster system has an institutionalised official opposition whose job is to critique, to question and to probe. Why? Because that leads to government being better when they’re under pressure. Even look at the layout of the floor of the Westminster parliament. It’s adversarial. You’re facing off against each other. That’s the nature of our system. And it’s important that we do that job.
GILBERT:
What about one of the members, you’d hoped that he was going to be a member of the Coalition, Tony Crook, the WA National. Now he’s not going to be sitting in the National Partyroom. That’s got to be a disappointment to you and the Nats?
FIFIELD:
Sure. It is. But we all know that the West Australian National Party march to the beat of a different drum. They are a proudly independent political party and we respect that. But on the centre-right we’re going to be pretty ecumenical in our approach and I’m sure that we’ll work well with Mr Crook.
LUNDY:
I think it’s a real blow for the Opposition and I think, I don’t want to pre-judge why Mr Crook’s made his decision. But I think it is a real blow. I know there was a lot of discussion about it earlier on that he would be in the National Partyroom, he would be in the Coalition Partyroom. Now he’s doing neither and I think that sends a pretty strong signal about the level of discomfort with the way Tony Abbott is taking his approach to this new minority parliament.
GILBERT:
I want to look at one other issue before we go, that is the Commonwealth Games. Kate, the shadow foreign affairs spokesperson, Julie Bishop, says that the Government should be providing full briefings to the athletes – not just say ‘look at the travel advisory’ – to provide the guidance, to provide their own security assessment. That’s a fair enough request, isn’t it? Why doesn’t the Government do that?
LUNDY:
There is a set procedure for this. There is travel advisories issued. I know that the athletes are being briefed on that. They’ve got a very good system of care through the Commonwealth Games committee and so forth and these practices are well established. Not just for Commonwealth Games but for our other international teams that travel regularly for which travel advisories may or may not be relevant. So there’s a standard practice that I have full confidence in and ultimately it’s up to the athlete. They have their individual choice whether they stay or go. So I get concerned when people start playing games with this, start whipping up outside of those procedures and I think it’s irresponsible of Julie Bishop to be making the comments she is and causing concern when we have perfectly well-established procedures that I think everybody can be confident in.
GILBERT:
Senator Fifield, these advisories are being updated regularly so the athletes should be across that. Is Julie Bishop being irresponsible in making these calls and suggesting the Government isn’t doing enough on this front?
FIFIELD:
Not at all. Julie is just making the observation that it’s important that Australian athletes representing the nation have the benefit of full and formal briefing on the circumstances in India. I hope that’s happening. If it’s not, it should be corrected. But I hope it is happening and hopefully Senator Lundy’s assurance is a good one.
GILBERT:
Senator Fifield, obviously a very difficult decision for these athletes as to whether or not to stay or go. Some are arriving as we speak, pretty much, in New Delhi. It must be such a difficult moment. How do you think, and what would be your recommendation, your advice to each of the athletes? I mean it’s obviously such a tough time for them.
FIFIELD:
I wouldn’t seek to give advice to individual athletes. I think all of us hope that India gets it together in time for the games. We know that developing countries do face particular challenges hosting large events like this. But I think we’re all willing them on to get it there and get it right. And I think most athletes are chomping at the bit to get over there. So if they can, if it’s safe, then they should. I think we all just want to see a successful games.
GILBERT:
Obviously, Kate, these are people that have trained entire lifetimes in many cases for an opportunity like this.
LUNDY:
Indeed and let’s take this opportunity both to wish the best of luck. I think it’s a fantastic opportunity. I think the New Delhi Games will be remarkable. We’re all hoping that it goes without any dramas or any problems at all. And just wish our athletes the best. It’s a great moment for them. And we should be celebrating their successes and efforts.
GILBERT:
Okay before we go. The Prime Minister has moved into The Lodge finally. It’s taken some time. Kate Lundy do you think, she wanted her own mandate, some are questioning whether or not she’s got the clear mandate, but she’s in The Lodge now with her partner.
LUNDY:
Well as she is the Prime Minister of this country and look as a very proud Canberran it’s wonderful to be able to welcome Julia Gillard to The Lodge. I think this city is a very beautiful city. One of the most beautiful in the world with its planned layout. And now we have quite rightly a prime minister, as the prime minister before her, living in The Lodge. So that’s wonderful. And can I, forgive me for this, but stand in contrast to the previous prime minister, former prime minister under the other government, John Howard, who did refuse to live in The Lodge all those years. So we’re proud to have our Labor prime ministers right here in Canberra where they belong.
GILBERT:
Senator Fifield, do you think Tony Abbott would be a bit bittersweet today as he arrives at Parliament House thinking he was within a whisker of moving in there himself.
FIFIELD:
I don’t think he would’ve given it a moment’s thought. He’s too busy with the job at hand. But I would note that, as with most prime ministers, Julia Gillard practically broke a hamstring to get into Kirribilli House the other day. And if Tim’s got a bit of time, I did notice the lawns at The Lodge needed a bit of a mow. So a bit of work to do there.
GILBERT:
I know that he does enjoy this program so he might take your advice there. Thanks Senator Fifield, Senator Lundy, appreciate your time this morning. Should be an interesting week ahead.
ENDS