16 April, 2012
Sky News AM Agenda
With David Lipson and Nick Champion MP
16 April 2012
8:45am
E & OE
Subjects: The Greens, budget, Murray-Darling Basin
DAVID LIPSON:
Joining us now for our political panel is Labor MP Nick Champion and the Shadow Disabilities Minister Senator Mitch Fifield. Thank you both for your time this morning gentlemen. We’ll get to the Budget in just a moment, but first of all I want to ask you for your reaction to these attacks overnight in Afghanistan. Mitch Fifield, what does this mean if anything for Australia’s commitment there?
MITCH FIFIELD:
I think the first thing we have to acknowledge is that this is just awful. We should never lose sight that this is more than just a news story, that these are real people whose lives have been shattered and destroyed. I think it just underlines the importance of the work that we’re doing in Afghanistan to give that country an independent security capacity, and also the importance of the development work that we’re doing to improve the quality of life of people in Afghanistan. There remains a lot of work to do, and we should remain the course.
LIPSON:
Nick Champion, any thoughts?
NICK CHAMPION:
These attacks of course are regrettable and of concern. But I think the most important thing is that we see Afghan National Army troops securing the capital against these insurgents, and that’s really what we want as a result of this entire conflict, is the Afghans themselves taking responsibility for their own security, and their own governance. That’s got to be the end point. I think what we’re there to do is to help them do that, to help them secure their nation and to have the rule of law all the things that Australians expect a strong civil society and a strong government. So we’re there to help them. Obviously that’s what we’re going to do.
LIPSON:
Moving to matters closer to home and the Budget. We just heard that interview there with Christine Milne at the start of the show. Nick Champion, should Wayne Swan be worried about these Greens threats that they’ll fight any cuts to the public service or to research and development, or family benefits and the like?
CHAMPION:
I think there’s a time for Keynsian priming of the economy, and that’s during the worst global financial crisis that we’ve seen since the Great Depression. But there’s also a time for fiscal discipline and a return to surplus. You can’t be a Keynsian on the way down and not on the way back up. So I think the Greens’ position is that they probably want deficits forever. Labor’s position is we should return to surplus to create the room for the Reserve Bank to lower interest rates. It’s interesting to see the Liberal Party out there Andrew Robb the Finance spokesman out there on radio this morning defending big bank margins, defending big bank profits and basically operating as a cheer squad for the ANZ who have put up rates. I think that’s a pretty outrageous comment.
LIPSON:
Back to the question though, Christine Milne was really more interested in, rather than cutting back family benefits and the like, she wanted to see big business, particularly mining companies, lose some of their tax benefits. Would that be something obviously you can’t reveal what’s in the budget and you probably don’t know but would that be something that would be worth talking about?
CHAMPION:
The Greens are an opposition party and they’re a party of the Senate. And that’s where they should remain. I think they’re entitled to their views but I don’t agree with them. The Labor Government will frame a Labor Budget for Labor priorities, and for the national interest, and that’s what we’re intent on doing. We’re intent on getting people back to work, we’re intent on building the country with infrastructure like the National Broadband Network, and we’re intent on returning the budget to surplus to create the room for the Reserve Bank to lower interest rates. Because that’s what people on the main streets of Gawler and Elizabeth and places that I represent need. They need an interest rate cut, and they need a company tax cut. So that’s what the Labor Government’s intent on doing.
LIPSON:
Mitch Fifield, on that company tax cut, we heard Senator Milne there saying that she stands by the Greens’ commitment to try to block these tax cuts for bigger business. This is of course associated with the mining tax, which the Coalition opposes. But Mitch Fifield, I can’t imagine that the Coalition would side with the Greens on this one?
FIFIELD:
We won’t be taking advice or guidance from the Australian Greens, David. I’ve got to come to where we started though. Stop the presses the Australian Greens oppose a balanced budget. No surprise there. Nick Champion said that the Greens were a party of opposition. Not true, Nick. They’re part of the formal governing alliance, and Christine Milne’s killer point today was that the Opposition should create some space for the Government to reconsider their commitment to a budget surplus. That we should provide some cover for them to break their election commitment. It was their commitment to get the budget back into balance in 2012-13. No one held a gun to their head. It was freely given. And they should repair the budget. They damaged it. We’d never expect the Australian Greens to support them in repairing it, but the Government should stick to their commitment and balance the budget.
LIPSON:
Nick Champion, what do you make of that accusation, that Tony Abbott was to blame in some way for the Government’s hardline commitment to a budget surplus?
CHAMPION:
It’s a bit of political trickery by the Greens I think, a bit of convenience to support their arguments. I don’t think they can make an economic argument for what they propose, so I think they make a political argument for it. I don’t think it’s particularly valid, but like I said, the Greens have their view. They’re a party of opposition, they’re a party of the Senate, they’re a Party, I think, that’s in competition with the Labor Party and not in alliance with us or in Coalition with us, not like the Liberal Party and the National Party. So we have a competitive relationship with the Greens and that’s the way it probably stay I suspect.
LIPSON:
Mitch Fifield, just more broadly on the Greens if I could get you gaze into your crystal ball what do you think this leadership change is going to mean for the Party in the long-term?
FIFIELD:
You have to admit that Bob Brown is a pretty skilful political operator. He’s managed to present the façade that he’s just kind old Uncle Bob, who cares about trees and the environment. I think in the absence of Bob Brown, people will start to see the Greens more for what they are which is a radical party of the left which the current Government have chosen to go into an alliance with. They’re a Party who want to scrap the alliance with the United States, who want to introduce death duties, who want to decriminalise drugs. They’re a Party of values which are not shared by mainstream Australia. And my hope would be that, in the absence of Bob Brown, we’ll see a similar situation to what happened to the Australian Democrats where no one ever really filled the shoes of Don Chipp. I think there will be a revolving door of leadership changes in the Greens. I imagine, Sarah Hanson-Young and Richard Di Natale, it won’t be too long before one of them will consider challenging Christine Milne. So I think it will be an unhappy time for the Greens, and that we will see a steady decline much as we did with the Australian Democrats.
LIPSON:
Senator Fifield, what about this reach out to regional Australia? Should the National Party ne worried?
FIFIELD:
I don’t think so. I really don’t think so. The more regional Australia gets to see the Greens up close and personal, the more it will confirm their existing disposition to put them as low on a ballot paper as it’s possible to do.
LIPSON:
And Nick Champion, just your thoughts on what this leadership change will mean for the Greens, but also the alliance with the Government, is that 100% safe?
CHAMPION:
The most important thing that can happen, I think, if the Liberal Party are concerned about the Greens influence in the national parliament, is that they should start referencing against them in lower house seats.
FIFIELD:
We’re happy to do that. Will the Australian Labor Party do that as well?
CHAMPION:
Mitch I did not interrupt you. The most important reason that we had to enter into an agreement of supply in government is because the Liberal Party preferenced the Greens in the seat of Melbourne. Had they not done that, there would be no Green in Melbourne, there would be a Labor Member for Melbourne, and we would be in Government in our own right. So I think the difficulty for the Liberal Party is here they preach outright hostility to the Greens, and what they practice is marriages of convenience with them at every opportunity, preferencing them at every opportunity, preferencing them in the lower house, doing deals with them in the Senate about matters like business tax cuts, entirely unethical marriages of convenience with them and I find it breathtaking that no one calls them to account on this. The Labor Party is intent on I think brining a progressive attitude to government, we want to govern for working people, working families in this country. The parties of opposition, the Liberals and the Greens do everything they can to play in a partisan way and to prevent that happening and it’s in their political interests to do so.
LIPSON:
Senator Fifield just a quick response on that?
FIFIELD:
I think we should preference the Greens last. But I also think the Australian Labor Party should preference the Greens last. While the Australian Labor Party preach to the Coalition as to what we should do, they have never themselves offered or undertaken to put the Greens last. If the Greens are as bad as we think they are and they are then the Australian Labor Party should preference the Greens last as well. But they won’t, because they are in a governing alliance with the Australian Greens.
LIPSON:
OK, I think you’ve both had a good chance on that one. I need to move on gentlemen, to the Murray-Darling consultation process, which wraps up today. I want to ask you, Mitch Fifield, do you think this has been a worthwhile process, the weeks and weeks of consultation we’ve seen trying to solve what is just such a complex and tricky issue?
FIFIELD:
Consultation is a good thing. It’s something that the Government failed to do initially with the first draft plan. But what remains to be seen is what the Government actually presents. We don’t have a plan from the Government yet. The Government haven’t secured agreement with any of the states in the Murray-Darling Basin. So we just have to wait and see what the Government presents, and we’ll take a close look at it when they do. But look, you’ve got to acknowledge that their form to date hasn’t been impressive, but we’ll wait and see what they propose.
LIPSON:
Nick Champion, a very important issue of course for your state, as it is for many of the eastern states. Do you have faith that this process will actually lead to a healthier Murray-Darling, without too much political pain for Labor?
CHAMPION:
I think there will be great political struggles over this, as there have been for a century. If it had been easy, it would have been done years ago. This is a very big challenge for the country. We’ve got to get more water for the river itself, more water for environmental concerns to make sure that the health of the river is maintained, we’ve got to remember that while we’ve had good rains recently, drought is only a step away in Australia at all times, and we’ve got to get a plan that provides certainty for this river. So there’s some very complex politics about it, we’ve got the upstream states I think returning to their water-gobbling ways. They want to basically carry on as if nothing is wrong. I think everybody in the Murray-Darling Basin has to act in the national interest and in the river’s interest and get a plan, and that basically requires compromise on all sides, but it also requires sacrifice on all sides and it’s about time we get some certainty and a plan for this very, very important national asset.
LIPSON:
OK, we are out of time unfortunately. Nick Champion and Mitch Fifield, thank you both very much for your time this morning on AM Agenda.
ENDS