Transcript – Capital Hill ABC24 – 1 December 2011

Capital Hill – ABC24

Lyndal Curtis and Stephen Jones MP

1 December 2011

5:30pm

E & OE

LYNDAL CURTIS:

Hello and welcome to Capital Hill. Federal Coalition MPs can probably put their feet up for the next three days and take in the exercise in noisy democracy that will be the ALP National Conference. Whether MPs are there or away from the conference, they’ll be watching or listening in the knowledge that they’ve probably got a pay rise coming – never a popular move and the timing for this one probably couldn’t be worse. Joining me to discuss the day’s events and the events of the days ahead, are Labor MP Stephen Jones and Liberal Senator Mitch Fifield. Welcome to you both.

STEPHEN JONES:

Good to be with you.

MITCH FIFIELD:

Hello.

We’ll start with one of the debates to be had at the Labor conference – that of same-sex marriage. A platform change could happen and the Prime Minister’s desire for a conscience vote on the floor of Parliament is not a certainty.

BOB BROWN (file footage):

I don’t understand Julia Gillard. How could a 2011 Prime Minister of Australia be stuck in 1911 when it comes to equality in marriage? How can she be swimming against the stream of her own party, let alone the great majority of the Australian people? Leadership requires you being up there in social change as well as economic and environmental and other changes, but she’s swimming against the tide.

SIMON CREAN (file footage):

I support the concept of people being able to have their relationship recognised, but I’ve come from that position over a long period of time. This is a difficult issue and it’s why the Labor Party conference over the weekend will determine its position on it, and we’ll live by the outcome of that conference decision.

CURTIS:

Stephen Jones, you’re involved in discussions about these issues in the lead up to the Labor Party conference. Do you think at the moment it looks like there will be a change to the Labor Party platform to allow same-sex marriage?

JONES:

Like Simon Crean who you just heard from, I’m not a longstanding activist in this area. I’ve come to it relatively late in the piece. But I like the majority of delegates to conference – and I believe the majority in the Australian community – think there is a case for change. We think that that should be done in a way that brings both the party and the community along with us. So we’ll have a debate, a pretty good debate over the next couple of days about how we achieve that.

Do you think it is likely to result, certainly from the motion being put, to a proposal to change the marriage Act?

Lyndal, I think there will be a proposal to change, but we have to work through all the options and see how we can ensure we do this in a way that brings both the community and the party along with us. People have been watching our Labor Party conferences over many years know that there’s a lot of heated debate that goes on around the topics that are before the conference, but after that, when all the dust settles, we all lock in behind the outcome and I predict that that’s exactly what we’ll do on this one as well.

That will be very much harder to do if the proposal for a conscience votes doesn’t get up, wouldn’t it?

I have every confidence that the view within the Labor Party conference will reflect the broader view within the community. I think there is a view within the community that there is a case for change, but we should to that in a way that accommodates the concerns and interests of everybody. We will do that. We’ll have a debate over the next couple of days about how we accommodate those differences within the party, but I’m confident that there will be a change to our platform on this particular issue.

Mitch, as Stephen says, if there are divergent views in the Labor Party on this issue, that is simply reflecting what’s out there in the community, isn’t it?  And would it be a surprise to think that there are not also divergent views in the Coalition on same-sex marriage?

There are certainly a range of views in the community, and many people hold views on both sides of this debate very strongly indeed. But the Australian Labor Party went to the last election proposing that there be no change to the Marriage Act. That’s also the position that the Coalition took to the last election. I can understand that people do want to express a view. We’ll hear some of that at the ALP convention over the weekend. But I’m yet to be convinced that there should be a change to the Marriage Act. As it is currently accepted in the community – it is between a man and a woman to the exclusion of others voluntarily entered into life. I think that’s the generally accepted community view of marriage.

Can really say, Mitch, that amongst all the MPs who make up the Coalition, that none of them have the personal view that perhaps a change is desirable?

Look, I wouldn’t pretend for a moment that there aren’t people who hold different views in the Coalition. I guess from a Coalition point of view, every vote on the floor of the Parliament is, in effect, a conscience issue. If people do feel particularly strongly, they can express an alternative view. We don’t have, in the Liberal Party, the automatic expulsion which applies in the Labor Party if someone votes contrary to the party position.

Stephen, in that sense, does that make the conscience vote issue crucial to be able to allow those people, if it comes to the floor of Parliament, who feel strongly about it, to vote no on the issue?

Like I said, Lyndal, there’s a debate going to be had over the next couple of days about how we handle that. But I would make this point – there’s nothing unusual within the Labor Party or in the Liberal Party about people coming to a debate with different points of view, putting those points view in the debate, win or lose, backing in behind the collective outcome. The Labor Party does it, the Liberal Party does it. That’s how governments work, that’s how political parties work, and I have every confidence that we’ll reach the right arrangement on this particular issue and I’ve got to say, it is not the only issue. It is an issue that will be debated but there’s a lot of other important issues that we’ll be debating at this conference as well.

One of those is the question of asylum seekers and offshore processing. The Immigration Minister Chris Bowen has suggested almost doubling the refugee intake effectively as a trade off for offshore processing. Stephen Jones, would an increase in the refugee intake change the left’s position at all on offshore processing?

JONES:

I gave a speech in Parliament about a month ago on this particular issue and I said in that speech that I don’t think Australia is pulling its weight in the region when it comes to the number of people, the number of humanitarian settlements, refugee intakes that we are taking on as a nation. When you look at the fact we take about 13,000 a year and that at any one point in time there are 100,000 refugees in Indonesia, about the same number in Malaysia and close to over a million in Pakistan and these are the regions, these are the countries directly within our region. I think a wealthy and a large nation wealthy and a large nation like Australia can be doing a lot more. So I welcome the proposition by the Minister that we have a significant increase in our intake. We obviously need to have a discussion about how and where and how that would operate, but I would make this important point and I think those within the party who share me view on this, that we should not be required to make a trade off between our international and our domestic human rights obligations to achieve that goal and I think we can achieve both of those objectives.

Mitch, the Coalition has at various times proposed increases in the refugee intake as trade offs for other things – a small increase in return for taking more people from Afghanistan, in return for being able to send more people who aren’t genuine refugees back. Do you think it is a good idea, it’s a good idea to start increasing the refugee intake, whatever happens with offshore processing?

The Government don’t have a policy when it comes to border protection, but they also don’t have a policy when it comes to the refugee intake. What Chris Bowen is proposing isn’t government policy. He’s essentially floating another balloon at the ALP National Conference. And we’re going to be seeing a lot of that this weekend – ministers taking things to the national conference, debating positions which aren’t actually government policy. So it’s a peculiar situation which we see at the moment. But what Chris Bowen is essentially proposing is rather than a five for one deal we have a thirty for one deal. This is policy on the run. What he’s proposing would cost, as I understand it, an extra $216,000 per additional intake.

So you don’t think there’s any need to increase the refugee intake, any reason to do it?

At the moment the figure is, I think, 13,750 for our refugee and humanitarian intake. That is one of the most generous intakes per capita of any nation, and we’ve yet to hear a case for that to be increased. But as I say, the Government are just floating thought bubbles. What they’re proposing is going to cost something of the order of $1.35 billion. It’s not government policy. It’s Chris Bowen floating an idea at the ALP National Conference.

Can I just come in there? Far from there not being a case, I just set out the case – why Australia needs to do more. If we’re to engage with our regional partners and get cooperation on this issue, and at least all sides of politics at least say that that is necessary, then we have to ensure that we are pulling our weight and taking our fair share of humanitarian intake into the country. And 13 or 14 thousand out of a total immigration intake of around about 110,000 is not going to cause any going to cause any significant problems for this country. The simple question that you put to Mitch that he’s ducked is, does the Opposition intend to oppose this, that is, is the Opposition going to do the same thing that it’s done on every other single policy proposition that’s come before the Parliament and that is, say no. This is the mob that say that they support offshore processing but vote against it when it comes before the Parliament. So is the Opposition going to fall into line with their say no, ‘no-alition’ leader Tony Abbott and say nothing to everything on this issue as they have with every other policy that’s come before the Parliament.

I’ll make two quick points. First is; this actually isn’t ALP policy. This actually isn’t government policy. This is something which has been floated for debate at the ALP National Conference. The second point is; we all embrace a generous humanitarian intake, but one of the things that the Australian people expect and want is that the government of the day is able to secure its borders. When they have confidence in a government’s capacity to do that, the Australian people are very generously-minded when it comes to the humanitarian and refugee intake.

If we could end up quickly on something neither of you will have to vote on, and that’s a reported proposed increase for politicians’ salaries. It is going to be, if it happens, as a trade-off for some allowances going. Stephen Jones, is that fair enough for MPs to get more money in their pockets but fewer allowances?

A few quick points on this, Lyndal. Firstly an independent tribunal has been given the task of determining a fair rate of remuneration for politicians and other statutory offices, by the way. They are due to report some time in the near future, I understand, and the stories that I understand is if there is to be an increase, there will be offsets against that increase. Those offsets would be in the form of doing away with some of the allowances that currently exist. But I’ve got to say I think the vast majority – not every- but the vast majority of the politicians that I’ve met work very hard and I frankly don’t think they’re overpaid. I think a tribunal set up to determine the fair rate of pay for MPs is the right way to go.

Mitch, do you agree?

FIFIELD:

Essentially, but I make the point that neither the remuneration tribunal nor the Government have communicated any information to us. So what we read in the papers is purely speculative. But I agree with Stephen – I don’t think any member or senator goes into public life for the money. They go into public life to make a difference, to try to improve the quality of life of Australians. We really shouldn’t have any role in our pay. It is appropriately something that should be determined by an independent tribunal. I, like my colleagues, will take what they give us, but it’s a matter for them.

CURTIS:

And that’s where we’ll have to leave it. Stephen Jones and Mitch Fifield thank you very much for your time.

Good to be with you.

FIFIELD:

Thank you.

ENDS