6 December, 2010
Sky News – AM Agenda
Ashleigh Gillon and Senator Doug Cameron
6 December 2010
8:30am
E & OE
Subjects: Wikileaks, Julian Assange, Afghanistan, banking reform, health reform, carbon price, industrial relations
ASHLEIGH GILLON:
Good morning and welcome to AM Agenda, I’m Ashleigh Gillon. The Wikileaks saga has hit the Gillard Government hard this morning with documents revealing that Kevin Rudd urged the US to be prepared to use force against China quote “if everything goes wrong.” The former Prime Minister also apparently indicated he was willing to offer forward troops to help Pakistan clamp down on terrorists in the country. This morning the Opposition is calling on the Prime Minister to urgently outline her approach to China. But many experts are playing down Mr Rudd’s comments saying his brutal approach to China will come as no surprise to Beijing. Joining me this morning for some reaction on our panel of politicians the Labor Senator, Doug Cameron, good morning to you.
SENATOR DOUG CAMERON:
Morning Ashleigh.
GILLON:
And joining us from Melbourne the Shadow Minister for Disabilities, Senator Mitch Fifield, good morning.
MITCH FIFIELD:
Good morning Ashleigh.
GILLON:
Doug Cameron let’s start with you. Kevin Rudd was built up to be this expert on China. We saw that most analysts thought he offended China when it came to his handling of the Stern Hu case. He referred to the Chinese as “rat f-ers,” we’re not going to say it on national television. But quite rude words used about China’s handling of negotiations at Copenhagen. Now urging the US to be prepared to use force against China. How do you think that’s going to go down?
CAMERON:
Well look I think, you know, diplomacy’s a tough game and international relationships is extremely complex situation for governments to deal with especially when it comes to the rise of China. And I think the main thing in terms of China is that they would understand that there is concern around the globe about their rise and their capacities and that’s natural. And I can’t comment on the details of the leaked document because that is a document that shouldn’t be out in the public arena. And I think it is important that diplomats can talk frankly and fearlessly to each other about developing issues internationally.
GILLON:
Mitch Fifield what’s your take on this? Do you think that the Chinese would have known that this is Australia’s approach and that the US would be ready for this sort of force to be taken against it if things don’t go well with the relationship?
FIFIELD:
Well I think the Chinese probably already had a pretty good idea of Kevin Rudd’s view of them by virtue of things like his comments at the Copenhagen climate change summit which you referred to before where he spoke about “Chinese rat-dot dot dot.” He does have an unhelpful turn of phrase. We also know that he referred to the UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, as “Spanky Banky.” So he certainly does have form. A lot of the comments which we’ve seen in the Wikileak cables have been what you might term “gossip style.” I think those who are familiar with diplomatic cables would be well aware that they’re often quite colourful because part of the purpose is to give politicians a sense of the flavour and the colour of particular individuals and particular nations. But Kevin Rudd’s comments are of a fundamentally different character. They actually go to the substance of our relationship with China. I think there are two explanations for his comments. He was either indicating what Australia’s true foreign policy disposition is towards China or he was merely seeking to big note himself and to try and impress Secretary Clinton. I think it’s incumbent on the Prime Minister to come out and declare which of those two it was. Was Kevin Rudd simply trying to big note himself or was he indicating something about Australia’s foreign policy?
GILLON:
Doug Cameron what’s your view on that? Was it one of the two and do you expect Julia Gillard will now be under pressure to come out and explain how Australia does sit on this issue?
CAMERON:
I think Julie Bishop is playing politics with this and I have to say to you the main problem with our future relationship with China is not something that’s said in some leaked document, it’s the xenophobia that’s been articulated by people like Barnaby Joyce against China. We must engage with China, China’s…
FIFIELD:
Come on Doug, these are words from Kevin Rudd’s mouth we’re talking about.
CAMERON:
Well this is where the Coalition have been going on China for some time. I sit in the Economics Committee in the Senate. I’ve seen the response that they’ve had to China. And I must say, it’s xenophobia and it’s not a good look.
GILLON:
And is that getting into this debate now do you think Mitch Fifield?
FIFIELD:
Not at all. I mean I don’t know how we’ve somehow got onto the subject of xenophobia when what we’re talking about…
CAMERON:
Because that’s what the Coalition have…
FIFIELD:
…are the words that have apparently come out of Kevin Rudd’s mouth which indicate Kevin Rudd’s attitude towards China. Now there’s a very easy way for this to be cleared up. The Prime Minister can come out, should come out, and indicate whether what Kevin Rudd said is indicating a change in Australia’s position in relation to China or if it was merely Kevin Rudd trying to big note himself with Secretary Clinton. I mean after all these are the words of the then Prime Minister who just happens to now be Australia’s Foreign Minister. So this is significant and it’s important that the Prime Minister clarify.
GILLON:
Looking at some of the comments that Mr Rudd made on Pakistan it looks like he offered forward Australian troops to help Pakistan if that was formally requested. But of course we know that Kevin Rudd didn’t want to send more troops to Afghanistan. We did see a small increase a couple of years ago but none since even though a lot of military experts are saying we really should be sending more troops to Afghanistan. Is there a disconnect going on there Doug Cameron?
CAMERON:
I think when you talk about Pakistan you’ve got to talk about Afghanistan. And they are both inextricably linked. And I think the biggest mistake in that area of overseas diplomacy and overseas action was taking out eye off the ball several years ago when we rushed in and looked for weapons of mass destruction that weren’t there in Iraq. That when we disengaged from Afghanistan, we’re paying a price for that now. I think Afghanistan and Pakistan are really important areas in terms of our future security and I support the Government’s position.
GILLON:
Mitch Fifield do you think that the Government may need to re-look at our troop contribution in Afghanistan considering the comments that we’ve seen from Kevin Rudd on possible commitments to Pakistan?
FIFIELD:
Well the issue here really is can you believe what the Government says? That the Government said at that time when Kevin Rudd was Prime Minister that Australia didn’t have any excess capacity. That we couldn’t deploy any additional troops to Afghanistan. What was the truth? What Kevin Rudd was saying publicly or what he was saying privately to Secretary Clinton…
CAMERON:
You guys wanted to put tanks in Afghanistan. Don’t lecture us about Afghanistan. Putting tanks into Afghanistan? What a joke!
FIFIELD:
The issue really is truthfulness. Can you believe what Kevin Rudd says? Now it’s all well and good for the Government to say that these are diplomatic cables and they shouldn’t be commented upon. Well obviously yes that’s true in the normal course of events. But there is a disconnect between what the Government’s been saying publicly and what is in these cables and the Government needs to clarify that.
GILLON:
Doug Cameron what do you think about Julian Assange, the guy behind this Wikileaks website. He’s saying that he feels abandoned by the Australian Government. Is there anything in you that feels ‘good on him, he’s getting out there, he’s providing transparency,’ the whole right-to-know argument. Should the Government be doing more to protect him?
CAMERON:
Just before I go with that, I just want to make the point clear. You can’t take seriously anything the Coalition says about Afghanistan. They’re the people who want to put tanks into Afghanistan and they were seen as an absolute joke in that proposal. As far as Julian Assange is concerned, Julian Assange is an Australian citizen. I’m not sure that he’s broken any Australian laws at the moment. If he has broken laws overseas then he is entitled to support as every other Australian citizen gets from the Australian Government.
GILLON:
But what about what he’s done? Is there a part of you that thinks “good on him”?
CAMERON:
I think there’s plenty of people around the country and around the world waiting with baited breath as to the next leak, but whether that’s a good thing in terms of long-term international security is another matter. And I think, you know, these documents shouldn’t have been leaked and I just don’t know what the legal situation is with Julian Assange.
GILLON:
Mitch Fifield, what’s your take on that? Do you think that there was an argument that these Wikileaks should be out there in the public domain?
FIFIELD:
Well just on the issue of tanks, Doug might want to update himself and check on the US disposition towards tanks. But coming back to Mr Assange, look obviously what he’s done is unhelpful. It would have been better that he hadn’t done it. I’m not sure if he has broken any laws. There’s always a temptation to shoot the messenger in this case. We are clearly aware as is the US that their own cables have been I think a little too widely distributed within their own networks and they’re taking action to address that. But I come back to what’s as important is the actual substance of what is in these communications and we’ve seen today that Kevin Rudd is saying something very very different publicly to what he said to the US and Julia Gillard needs to clarify that.
GILLON:
And look on that issue of tanks which I know you both alluded to there, I think actually Mitch Fifield has a point. Because I think at the last UN meeting there was a report that was put forward to the UN saying that tanks was actually a good idea and Jim Molan, the former commander in Iraq, it’s been an issue that he’s been pushing for some time as well…
CAMERON:
Former commanders can push what they like but you’ve got to take advice from the commanders who are there at the moment. They’re not asking for tanks.
FIFIELD:
Doug’s got the old talking points.
GILLON:
OK I think that’s another issue for another day. Let’s move on. We are going to take a look at some other domestic political issues just after this break.
BREAK
Welcome back to AM Agenda. A two day long Cabinet meeting is kicking off in Canberra today. We are expecting that Wayne Swan’s banking reforms will be signed off on. The Treasurer will present a five point plan. The Age reports this morning that on bank switching the Treasurer will want to announce broad goals meaning that people can change banks by just filling in a form but not having to go through the long, drawn-out process that it is at the moment. Also it’s going to give more assistance to the smaller banks, building societies and credit unions. Mitch Fifield from the hints we’ve got about what these reforms include do you support them? A few of them seem similar to what Joe Hockey has been banging on about for a few weeks now.
FIFIELD:
We’ll have to see what constitutes Wayne Swan’s five point plan. I must say I’m a little confused because Wayne Swan spent a long time saying that our banking system was fine, there was adequate competition, that if you were a consumer and you weren’t happy all you had to do was exit the bank, go down the street and find yourself a better deal. But what Australians knew is that it wasn’t that easy to exit the bank and that if you went down the street you’d probably find exactly the same deal. So Joe Hockey for quite some time had been talking about the need to find ways to enhance competition. He was ridiculed when he started that discussion. He was ridiculed when he released his nine point plan. All of a sudden, Joe Hockey is starting to look right on the money. There are things that government can do in the short term and medium term. We’ve introduced a Private Member’s Bill in relation to price signalling to give the ACCC better powers. But there are other things which government can do immediately and the most important one of those to take upward pressure off interest rates is for the government to stop borrowing and to pay down the debt. We’ll see if that is actually one of Wayne Swan’s five points. I doubt that it will be.
GILLON:
Because that is a point the Opposition has been making for some time. That it thinks there are these different pressures going on in terms of fiscal and monetary policy at the moment. Is that a concern that the Government should be tackling when it does come to banks and clamping down on interest rates?
CAMERON:
The so-called plan from Joe Hockey is a thought bubble. It wasn’t a plan. It was a knee-jerk reaction to try and get some political advantage. We are not prepared just to get involved in knee-jerk reactions on the banking system. We want to make sure that what we do works well and what we do delivers for the Australian public. That’s why we’ve taken our time to analyse it, resisted the calls for a knee-jerk reaction and when the points come out I’m convinced they’ll be in the best interest of all of the consumers in this country.
GILLON:
We are going to have to wait and see. It looks like Wayne Swan will be unveiling those reforms on Wednesday so we will of course bring you all the details when we do get them. Of course the Federal Government is also still at the moment grappling with how to deal with more Liberal Premiers joining the COAG table. Of course this is after the Victorian Liberal Leader, Ted Baillieu, became the Premier there last week. We’re also expecting Barry O’Farrell to soon become the Premier of New South Wales if all of the pundits are right there. We spoke yesterday with Nicola Roxon, the Health Minister, on Australian Agenda and she seemed to think that Ted Baillieu will come around to her health reforms and was pretty confident that she can work well with him. Have a listen.
NICOLA ROXON:
I’m very confident that Mr Baillieu will take an open mind to this arrangement. No Premier wants to stand in the way of investments being made in their state. And we’re looking forward to talking with them as soon as they are ready to do so.
GILLON:
But when we did speak with Barry O’Farrell on that program as well he made it pretty clear that he’s not going to be playing ball when it comes to giving up New South Wales’ GST portion. Have a listen.
BARRY O’FARRELL:
The GST was a boon for the states because it’s a growth tax. It helps out bottom line. To give it away through a COAG process without reference to the community I think is an abrogation of all fiscal responsibilities.
GILLON:
Doug Cameron when you listen to those comments and you take in mind the position that the WA Premier Colin Barnett has on this as well it looks like the Government is going to need to make some pretty serious changes to the health reforms on the table.
CAMERON:
Well I’m not sure it’s the Government that will have to make changes. I think some of the political rhetoric that’s coming out at the moment just beggars belief. It’s quite clear and unequivocal that the GST and the State’s finances cannot ensure the investment that’s required in beds, in doctors, in training and technology in the health system. I think the national interest will win out and both these Premiers will have to understand that they can’t afford to do the things that they will be promising their state constituents.
GILLON:
Mitch Fifield would you really encourage your home state of Victoria to miss out on millions of dollars worth of hospital funding, of more hospital beds etcetera?
FIFIELD:
Well firstly Ashleigh, I noted that Doug referred to Barry O’Farrell and Ted Baillieu as “both these Premiers,” so it’s clear that Doug’s already written off Kristina Keneally and the New South Wales Government which I think is probably a wise thing. Look Ted Baillieu will do what is in the interests of Victoria. It was the Kennett Liberal Government that introduced case mix funding and that’s one of the objectives of this national health reform that the Government is seeking to introduce, is to introduce this case mix funding throughout Australia. Well we already have it in Victoria so allowing the Commonwealth to hold back GST revenues from Victoria isn’t going to bring into being something that isn’t already there. Ted wants to take a very close look at this agreement. There are still a lot of details that are still being fleshed out by various COAG working parties. So Ted is going to take his time. He’s going to make sure that Victoria gets a good deal. If it’s not, then I’ve got no doubt that Ted will seek to renegotiate as he should.
GILLON:
Another big issue that we will be talking a lot about this year is of course putting a price on carbon. Julia Gillard sais that 2011 is going to be all about deciding and delivering, especially on this issue. Yesterday we spoke to the Greens Senator Christine Milne and she was hoping that this is all going to be up and running and perhaps legislated by the middle of next year bringing forward the timeline that a lot of analysts had been predicting. Have a listen.
SENATOR CHRISTINE MILNE:
Our timeframe is as soon as possible and clearly as soon as possible is after the Greens get balance of power next year so we are working towards being able to deliver a carbon price mechanism by then.
GILLON:
Doug Cameron do you agree that the Government is going to have to commit to much deeper cuts to emissions if ‘a’ it’s going to get the Greens on side and they don’t scuttle the plan like they did with the ETS and ‘b’ to even have a decent impact on the environment?
CAMERON:
The Government has got a clear position in terms of where it wants to head, in terms of putting a price on carbon. We actually believe the science, we do believe that something has to be delivered to ensure the future generations have got a decent life. And we are arguing and arguing strongly is that there has to be a balance in this, there has to be a balance between actually taking the steps in a pragmatic real way and the rhetoric that we hear from some that says you’ve got to shut down industry to deliver. But we’re not about to shut down industry to deliver, but we are going to take the steps to ensure that future generations are protected from the worst aspects of climate change.
GILLON:
But deeper cuts though, back to the question, is that something that you think the Government is going to have to go for?
CAMERON:
No I’m not convinced of that at all. But this is a negotiation that will take place between the Greens and we would have liked the Coalition to be there because actually the Coalition should stop the rhetoric and start taking some control within the Coalition to stop the Barnaby Joyces and this nonsense line that it’s just a big tax. It is about ensuring the future of this country and the Coalition should be playing a role. And if they played a role the Greens wouldn’t be the issue here.
GILLON:
Mitch Fifield no doubt you want to respond to that and also I want to raise an issue that it seems the Coaliton is grappling with at the moment and that is looking at what sort of industrial relations policy you’ll take to the next election with some in your party arguing that you should really be embracing a policy that will call for changes to the Government’s Fair Work laws. What’s your take on that?
FIFIELD:
Just on a price on carbon first. This Government went to the election promising that there would not be a carbon tax. That’s the very first promise that they broke after the election. Secondly, Doug I think may have already broken a second election commitment here. Doug said that further cuts would be discussed and possibly come out of negotiations with the Greens. So that’s news on that score. But as we know…
GILLON:
Let’s move on to IR, Mitch Fifield.
FIFIELD:
…the Labor Government might be in office but the Greens are in power. Coming to IR Asheligh, we said after the 2007 election that we recognise the verdict of the Australian people, that they have rejected WorkChoices and we declared that we would not seek to change IR law in this term of Parliament. Many in business said that there’d been a lot of change and they wanted to allow these changes to work their way through the system. However what Labor have done is to set up a straw man that if at any point after the next election the Coalition seeks to change IR legislation that any change equals WorkChoices. Well it doesn’t. There were many industrial relations changes which we introduced before WorkChoices such as Australian Workplace Agreements, they pre-date WorkChoices. We will never walk away from the proposition that it’s the right of any individual to sell their own labour on terms acceptable to them. We’ll never walk away from that. And we’ll never walk away from the fact that businesses should not be subject to unfair union interference and intervention. So, sure, we will no doubt have some changes to take to the next election. If unions said there needed to be changes, if business said there did, of course we’d consider those.
GILLON:
Mitch Fifield thank you for your time this morning. Doug Cameron no doubt you want to have a very quick response to that, we are almost out of time. I also want a one word answer from you on the zombies question. You famously said that some of your colleagues are acting like zombies parroting the party line all the time. Is that improving at all or do you still hold that criticism?
CAMERON:
Well the brain has got great recuperative powers and I think ours is going okay actually. But in terms of Mitch Fifield’s approach this is just code, what he’s talking about, to re-introduce WorkChoices and no one should be under any doubt that the (inaudible) Robb and Hockey and the Fifields in the Coalition want WorkChoices back and they’ll do whatever they can to cut wages, cut conditions, cut penalty rates and really make it tough for workers out there.
GILLON:
That is the very reaction that Tony Abbott is worried about in terms of looking at that issue. Doug Cameron thank you for your time this morning as well.
ENDS