Transcript – Sky News AM Agenda – 9 January 2012

Sky News AM Agenda

David Lipson and Nick Champion MP

9 January 2012

8:45am

E & OE

DAVID LIPSON:

To discuss the political issues of the day and indeed the year ahead, our political panel – Senator Mitch Fifield is in Melbourne and Labor MP Nick Champion joins us from Adelaide. Good morning to both of you and happy new year.

MITCH FIFIELD:

Good morning.

NICK CHAMPION:

Good morning. Happy New Year.

I want to start with you, Nick Champion. Should these men be released and handed back to Australia?

CHAMPION:

Of course that’s our preferred option, but one has to understand these men boarded the Japanese ship outside of our territorial waters, and as such it’s a complex interaction between international and Japanese domestic laws. But they’ll probably come under the jurisdiction of the Japanese, and so all we can do is really try and attempt to negotiate with the Japanese government to obviously ensure that they’re safe and where they are, and then obviously to provide consular assistance to their families and assistance to them whatever jurisdiction they then fall under.

LIPSON:

We heard the captain of the Sea Shepherd saying that although this occurred outside Australian waters, within the contiguous zone – which is a sort of extended zone where occasionally the laws of the country can apply. Without getting too deep into the intricacies of international maritime law, does that have any bearing at all on the outcome for these men?

CHAMPION:

The Sea Shepherd are provocateurs I guess in this whole debate, and obviously their comments are made with that in mind. I think a lot of what he said was designed to inflame the situation rather than to calm it down, and I think now is probably a time for cool heads and not for exacerbating tensions that might be there. It’s pretty clear that if you board another nation’s vessel in international waters then you come under the jurisdiction of that nation. And that’s been a longstanding part of international maritime law.

LIPSON:

Senator Fifield, what should the Government  be doing here?

We agree that the Australian citizens should be handed across to Australian authorities as soon as possible, but it’s more a case of what the Government should have done in the first place. These events were entirely predictable. Greg Hunt, our environment spokesman, wrote to the Government on three occasions in December warning that this sort of thing could happen, that the Government should take action. We recommended that a Customs vessel be in the sea, that we have a cop on the beat. The various parties are much more likely to behave themselves if you’ve got a physical presence there, and that would also increase the options available to the Australian Government. So it’s really a case of what the Government should have done in the first place.

But would that not take away a customs vessel from other important waters, namely the North of Australia, where we’re seeing so many asylum seekers coming to shore?

You raise a good point David – that everything that this Government touches turns to rubbish. We do have a huge challenge in our North because this Government dismantled border protection policies, dismantled offshore processing at Nauru and Temporary Protection Visas. But that’s another issue. The Government have got to manage the resources that they have, but this sort of incident that we’ve seen in the Southern Ocean was entirely predictable.

What do you say to that, Nick Champion? Is this something we could have foreseen?

It was entirely predictable and it was entirely predictable that it was going to occur whether there was a customs vessel there or not. I think, as I said before, Sea Shepherd goes down there with an agenda in mind, and I don’t think that a Customs vessel is going to make much difference in that at all. In regards to asylum seekers, if the Coalition is so concerned about asylum seekers in the North coming to Australia through irregular maritime arrivals, then they only need negotiate with the Government on offshore processing and we can have Malaysia operating and other options tomorrow if the Parliament will only agree.

We touched a little bit earlier on this issue with Anna Bligh – the issue of GST. We’ve seen several reports this morning where tensions are increasing in relation to the carve-up of the GST between the states. We’re seeing reports that the Queensland opposition is potentially threatening to join New South Wales and Victoria in a block against the current formula for the distribution of the GST. Mitch Fifield as a Senator for Victoria, what would that mean, and would you welcome Queensland joining Victoria and New South Wales?

State Premiers are all consenting adults. They can get together and associate and discuss and lobby for whatever they want. The issue here is Wayne Swan’s behaviour in seeking to change the terms of reference of the review of the GST carve-up while the review is currently underway. Let’s not be taken in by this idea that Wayne Swan is pursuing some form of elegance in tax design or a more perfect federation. It’s just a naked tax grab on his part for mining money.

Just to elaborate on what the Senator is saying there for those at home, this is another report which suggests that the terms of reference for the review into the GST carve-up have been widened. Now the Treasurer’s office says that this is not new news, that this has been known and reported on for some months now. But it would essentially include potential penalties or incentives for states that adjust their state taxes, and particular mining royalties – that’s the pertinent issue here – with the potential punishment for states that increase their royalties and reduce the effectiveness or the revenue of the mining tax. Nick Champion, what would that mean, what does this mean that the terms of reference have been changed? Does that indicate that the Government’s worried about the revenue from the mining tax?

All I think it means is that we’re having a broader discussion, a broader review, and it’s sensible to have a review of these arrangements from time to time. Obviously as Mitch says, you never stand between a premier and a bucket of money, and they’re all going to defend their states’ interest, and one would expect them to do that, but it’s sensible to have a wide-ranging review and a good look at these arrangements as we come into this decade. It’s also sensible to have a mining resources tax so that the great benefits and the great wealth that’s been extracted from our country through our natural endowment – the minerals that we all own – that that wealth is spread far more broadly into superannuation, into tax breaks for small business, and into infrastructure so that the country benefits as a whole rather than just having big multi-national mining companies extracting huge profits and then leaving us at the end of it all with just a hole in the ground. I think it’s entirely sensible what the Government’s done, both in broadening the review and having a profits-based mining tax which spreads the great wealth this country has a little more broadly while keeping economic growth motoring alone.

So do you think it would be fair for states to be penalised in their GST take if they increase mining royalties for the minerals that essentially are in their ground?

CHAMPION:

David that already happens under the current formula, so it’s a bit of a redundant question if you don’t mind me saying. It already occurs in the way they split up the GST at the moment. So what the review is doing is obviously having a good look at all these issues and making sure it’s not just fair by the states but fair by the nation as a whole and meets the national interest, which is of course the great test for the federal parliament.

Mitch Fifield, what’s your response to that?

The big issue here really is the state of commonwealth-state relations. You’ll remember that Kevin Rudd said he was going to end the blame game between the commonwealth and the states, that he was going to end the buck-passing. But what we have is a situation where commonwealth-state relations are probably the most toxic in living memory. Part of the reason for that is that the current Federal Government don’t treat the states with respect. John Howard, when he was Prime Minister, did. And you’ll probably recall that Peter Beattie could scarcely get out of bed in the morning without praising John Howard’s management of commonwealth-state relations. But whether it be the dealings with the states by the commonwealth on the mining tax, the carbon tax or poker machines, this Commonwealth Government doesn’t consult with the states. They issue decrees and, quite understandably, the states are arking up. They’re not happy. They’re not going to take it any more. They should be treated with respect and as equal partners in the federation.

LIPSON:

Mitch Fifield and Nick Champion, great to have you back on the program for another year of politics. Thanks very much for joining us, and thanks very much for your company.  

ENDS