7 September, 2011
ABC News 24 Capital Hill
Lyndal Curtis and Steve Georganas MP
5 September 2011
5:30pm
E & OE
Subjects: Asylum-seekers, industrial relations
LYNDAL CURTIS:
Welcome to Capital Hill. Well, he’s Tony Abbott and he’s here to help. That was the message from the Opposition Leader who says he’s willing to give the government a hand to help it solve the problem over its asylum seeker policy. The Prime Minister says legislative change would be needed if offshore processing is to be an option. But she’s not sure that the offer of help from Tony Abbott comes without strings attached. The Prime Minister has other problems to deal with too. The left doesn’t want any offshore processing, and any solution she comes up with will have to comply with the UN Convention on Refugees, and possibly make it through the courts.
To discuss the day’s events I’ve been joined by Labor MP Steve Georganas and Liberal Senator Mitch Fifield. Welcome to you both. Steve, do you think the Cabinet should opt for a solution that allows offshore processing to continue, or should there be onshore processing only for asylum seekers?
STEVE GEORGANAS:
Look, all options are on the table at the moment. We’ll be having discussions over the next week and of course as I said all options are on the table. What we really need to find out, though, is whether Tony Abbott is actually genuine, and he needs to clarify what his message was today. Is this about assisting the Government and ensuring we can come up with a solution that will benefit all, or is it just another political ploy by Tony Abbott to try to have a political fix that only gives the advantage to his side of politics.
CURTIS:
But in the end, Steve, doesn’t the Government have to come up with the policy? And aren’t there internal differences about what the Government should do; with the left saying it wants a return to the party platform which is onshore processing only, and limited mandatory detention?
GEORGANAS:
Well it’s certainly a time to have that discussion, and we’ll be discussing that and I’m not going to disclose here today what we’ll be discussing in caucus in the next week or so. But certainly everyone will have their say in caucus, everyone will be able to stand up and have their say. But one thing I can assure you is that when we leave that caucus room, we’ll all be united behind whatever decision through our democratic process that we come up with. What else I have to say today is that Tony Abbott has to clarify what he says in terms of what he means by assisting the Government to come up with a solution. On the one hand he can’t criticise the Government and say that the High Court decision last week did not count in Nauru, and on the other hand want to assist the Government to come up with solution to look at offshore processing. So he needs to make up his mind one way or another and ensure that he’s not playing politics. And we’re open to all suggestions.
CURTIS:
Mitch, do you believe does the Coalition believe that legislative change is needed if offshore processing is to continue to be an option? And is the help Tony Abbott is offering unconditional?
MITCH FIFIELD:
The Government is really in the best position to advise whether legislative change is needed. We’ve indicated that if legislative change is required to give effect to offshore processing, then we’re very happy to talk about that. We’re very happy to assist the Government. But this situation is farcical. Here we have the Government saying that the Opposition needs to clarify its policy and its intentions, and indicate whether it’s genuine in its desire to help the Government. Well, we have had a consistent policy all the way. We have been consistent in wanting to assist the Government. We have said since the inception of this Government that they should maintain offshore processing at Nauru, that they should have temporary protection visas and that they should maintain a compassionate but firm stance in favour of an orderly system of processing. But they haven’t done that. We’ve given that advice and we’re still giving it.
CURTIS:
But if the Coalition is offering the Government help, isn’t it fair to say whether that help comes with strings attached whether you want it to be specific to Nauru or whether you’re willing to give the Government an option that leaves Malaysia as a solution on the table?
FIFIELD:
If the Government want to examine the Nauru option – which we think they should, and which we don’t think the High Court decision rules out – then we’re happy to sit down, we’re happy to make the changes to the law that would give effect to that.
CURTIS:
But it’s fair to say if you weren’t happy with the Nauru solution, would you then allow legislative change that would allow the Nauru solution to be revived?
FIFIELD:
Let’s start with the Nauru solution. It’s worked before, it can work again. The Government of Nauru is ready, willing and able. The High Court judgement doesn’t appear at face value to necessarily rule out Nauru. It might make it slightly more difficult but it doesn’t rule it out. The Government of Nauru have signed the UN Convention on Refugees that’s due to take effect shortly. And the Government of Nauru have also indicated that they are prepared to adjust their domestic law to make sure that it is not in conflict with the High Court decision. So the most sensible approach for the Government would be to examine the Nauru option. That’s our recommendation and we’re happy to sit down and talk to them about that.
CURTIS:
Steve, should the Government accept an offer of help from Tony Abbott with open arms, because the Cabinet doesn’t yet seem to know what it wants to do?
GEORGANAS:
As I said, Tony Abbott has to clarify what that help is that he’s talking about. Again, we hear from the Opposition just now that on the one hand, they don’t accept the advice of the High Court decision regarding Nauru, and on the other hand they want to work with us legislatively. They have to make up their minds whether they’re playing politics with this issue a very important issue, a very complex issue, can I say, and an issue that won’t be fixed with one line grabs as the Government has been using. As I said, all options are on the table and we’ll be looking at all those options over the next few days and over the next week or so.
FIFIELD:
Steve, the Labor Party doesn’t even have a one-line grab on this issue! We’ve got a policy a consistent policy. You should start listening to us.
GEORGANAS:
What I can say is that we’re dealing with human lives here, we’re dealing with people. We have over 40 million people across the world in refugee camps and refugees that are moving across the world. Australia had just over 3000 last year that came as undisclosed boat arrivals. But let’s get this into perspective. When I’m out in my electorate and I’m talking to people, they want to talk about the economy, job security, they want to talk about education for their children, they’ve got the health services they require. And certainly of course this is an issue and we need to deal with it with level heads without inciting extreme views in the community and to ensure that we have a long-term, lasting solution and a solution that is covered by the UN ensuring that we have a global solution within our area as well.
CURTIS:
Steve are you confident that Cabinet is looking at the option of processing onshore only?
GEORGANAS:
Look I can’t tell you what the Cabinet is looking into. I’m not privy to the Cabinet discussion and nor is anyone else. All I know is that all options are on the table and what we need to do is ensure that we do all we can to stop the people smugglers – that those people who are profiteering from bringing people to our shores. It’s just like when you’re driving along the road, if you come across a roadblock, you don’t just walk out of your car and give up on the trip, you look at ways of getting around it and that’s what we’ll be doing.
CURTIS:
Mitch, if the Coalition does back any legislative change put forward by the Government, does that wed you to the policy the Government ultimately proceeds with, whether it’s Nauru, whether it’s Malaysia?
FIFIELD:
That’s a hypothetical, Lyndal. We don’t know if the Government will accept all of our advice. We don’t know if the Government will introduce temporary protection visas as well. We’ve offered to assist, we’ve offered to talk to the Government to help with changes to the Migration Act if that’s necessary. But as we’ve seen with this Government, even if you provide assistance, even if you provide good advice, they have a terrific capacity to maladminister any policy they have. But Lyndal I’ve got to say, I’m almost speechless that I keep hearing that the Opposition have got to clarify its position. This Government does not have a border protection policy. This Government does not have an asylum seeker policy. Steve cannot give any indication as to what the Government’s current position is. The onus is hardly on the Opposition to come up with a solution. Despite that, we have and the Government should take heed.
CURTIS:
If I could move onto another issue, the Australian Industry Group has said the Government’s industrial relations changes have led to less workforce flexibility, that most employers want individual agreements reinstated, and that higher penalty rates are causing problems. Mitch, Tony Abbott has said that he’ll proceed with industrial relations on a problem solving basis, hasn’t the Australian Industry Group, along with other business groups, identified individual agreements and penalty rates as problems?
FIFIELD:
The Australian Industry Group have identified problems. We’ve said all along that we want to listen to what business has to say, we want to listen to what employees have to say about problems with the Fair Work legislation of this Government. I’ve got to say at the outset, lest there be any hysterical cries from Steve, that we did get the message from the 2007 election Workchoices is dead. We won’t be revisiting Workchoices. But that’s not to say that the current Government have found some sort of industrial relations nirvana or some industrial perfection. The legislation should be reviewed, the Government is proposing to do that in January. We think that should be brought forward and we’re very happy to look at practical solutions which business and employees identify.
CURTIS:
You say you want to hear from business and employees, but haven’t business been raising these same concerns for many months?
FIFIELD:
Business are raising these concerns, absolutely. But it’s not just for the Opposition to listen to those, it’s also for the Government to listen to those. And that’s why we think that the Government should bring forward the formal review. We will have an industrial relations policy at the next election. It won’t be radical. It won’t be ideological. But it will respond to some of the concerns that are being expressed.
CURTIS:
Steve, if the review in January does throw up the sorts of problems we’ve been hearing about from business for some time, should the legislation be changed?
GEORGANAS:
We looked into Workchoices. We threw Workchoices out. We know that people under Workchoices, especially women, were approximately 80 to 90 dollars worse off than what they were without Workchoices. When we hear Mitch and others talking about looking and reviewing the legislation we know it’s code for bringing back Workchoices. What we’ve seen over the last few days is Tony Abbott trying to resurrect Workchoices giving it mouth to mouth resuscitation to try to get it up and running again. There’s certainly a whole line of Opposition members doing the same thing, lining up to give it mouth to mouth resuscitation.
CURTIS:
But is it possible to say that the Government legislation is perfect and doesn’t need any changing?
GEORGANAS:
We’re always looking at the legislation. I think we’ve got it about right. We’ve looked at productivity in other ways, we’ve ensured we’ve got trade training centres up and running where we see these students actually training trades before they leave school so they can be productive when they’re out in the workforce. We’re looking at employing older people and ensuring we have schemes up and running to employ those people. There are many things that the Government is doing and these things will take some time. But certainly when we hear the Opposition using language like looking at the legislation and looking at individual contracts we know it’s code for bringing back Workchoices and as I said you’ve got Tony Abbott trying to give it mouth to mouth resuscitation with a whole conga line of Opposition members lining up to help out in that mouth to mouth resuscitation of Workchoices.
CURTIS:
And that’s where we’ll have to leave it. Gentlemen, Mitch Fifield and Steve Georganas, thank you very much for joining us.
FIFIELD:
Thanks Lyndal.
GEORGANAS:
Thank you.
ENDS