6 August, 2012
Sky News AM Agenda
With Kieran Gilbert and Ed Husic MP
6 August 2012
8:45am
E & OE
Subjects: Marriage Act, freedom of speech
KIERAN GILBERT:
Joining me now from Melbourne, Liberal frontbencher Senator Mitch Fifield, and at the Sky News Centre, Labor MP Ed Husic. Gents, good morning. Ed, I want to ask you first of all if I can, about this Tasmanian move, Lara Giddings announcement on the weekend. What do you make of it?
ED HUSIC:
Yeah I think that given that the Marriage Act is administered federally, I don’t necessarily see the point of going through this process since we’ve already embarked on a way in which to get this resolved. So I’m only one MP but I think personally it would be better to just manage it at a federal level and leave it at that. It is, as you can tell from your interviews this morning, something that you have very deeply felt beliefs about on either side of the debate. So instead of having fifty million of these debates occur all over the place, just manage it in the way that it’s supposed to be under the federal act.
KIERAN GILBERT:
Senator Fifield, your thoughts on the Tasmanian move. Do you support it or not?
MITCH FIFIELD:
Marriage law is something that I think should be determined at the federal level. One of the issues that we have nationally is that the Australian Labor Party took to the last election a policy that there would be no change to the Marriage Act. Labor have walked away from that. The Coalition took to the last election a policy that there would be no change to the Marriage Act and we’re sticking to that. I think if there is to be a change to marriage legislation, if a party is to change its position, then it’s incumbent upon them to take that to the voters at an election. We haven’t seen that occur federally. In relation to the Tasmanian proposal, I think these matters are best handled at a national level.
KIERAN GILBERT:
There are some on your side though Senator Fifield who would prefer and who have argued that a conscience vote is the best way to manage an issue like this.
MITCH FIFIELD:
A conscience vote or a free vote is usually accorded in a situation where a party doesn’t have a policy. And we do have a policy, which is that the Marriage Act remains as it is. Having said that, unlike the Australian Labor Party, the Liberal Party does recognise the right of an individual to exercise their vote, and if an individual does that contrary to party policy then that’s respected. We don’t automatically expel them as is the case in the Australian Labor Party.
KIERAN GILBERT:
But not if you’re on the frontbench like yourself or Malcolm Turnbull or others who would want to cross the floor. They would have to resign their position wouldn’t they?
MITCH FIFIELD:
We observe the principle of shadow ministerial and cabinet responsibility whereby if you’re a member of the frontbench you are bound by the party policy. And we do have a policy. That is to support the status quo.
KIERAN GILBERT:
Ed Husic, this is not really where the Prime Minister or the Government would want the debate is it? As much as Alex Greenwich from Marriage Equality did say that this isn’t a side issue, it’s not an issue which is front of mind for many Australians and I suppose the people that you’re trying to reconnect with in the Labor Party?
ED HUSIC:
Look I accept that in a parliament you’re going to have, and through the course of a parliamentary term, there will be a range of issues that you went to an election with and there’ll be a range of issues that will crop up in the middle of that term that you need to deal with. And you just can’t, I mean I’ve got a difference of opinion in terms of what Mitch said. I think that you can’t claim to be the party of Liberalism and not allow your people to actually have a conscience vote. And I think that ultimately you do have to deal with issues as they arise, and that’s what’s happening here. So I think if you’re fair dinkum, you’ll allow people MPs to make their mind up depending on where they believe the right way to fall on the issue is.
KIERAN GILBERT:
Well I know it’s a bit of a difficult one for you personally because you have a different view to many in your electorate. Is that right and can you explain which way you’re going to vote on this matter?
ED HUSIC:
I personally don’t see issue with changing the act but I’ve got a strong belief that I need to represent the views of my electorate, and what I get moving around the electorate is a view that says people aren’t prepared to change the Marriage Act. So I’ll be acting accordingly.
KIERAN GILBERT:
Alright let’s move on and look at this speech today to the Institute of Public Affairs. It’s been reported on, a preview of it given to the Australian newspaper. Tony Abbott, critical of the way the Government is responding to its concerns of the media, calling for and looking at the Finkelstein Review and considering more regulation. I’ll quote a little bit of it to you: “Instead of conceding criticism is a fair cop likely to spur better performance, the current Government’s response has been thinly veiled intimidation of critics masquerading as proposals for better regulation”. Ed Husic, what do you say to this argument by Tony Abbott that essentially the Government’s got a glass jaw?
ED HUSIC:
Well I for one am looking forward to this speech. I think it’s a revelation from a mob that basically browbeat and harangued and changed board positions on the ABC for the entire time it was in Government. It was a sort of core reason for being to change the ABC. Now they’re the champions of freedom. What I also noticed in today’s excerpt of the speech which is contained in the newspaper today is not an ironclad position by the Leader of the Opposition on retaining provisions that try to avoid incitation of hatred or racial vilification but rather a claim that says we’d be prepared to look at it. Well if you’re fair dinkum on this issue, you’ll take a hardline. I don’t think there’s any room in public debate for inciting of hate, and I think they should rule it out straight away.
KIERAN GILBERT:
You did rule out any change to it but isn’t there a sense that it’s hindering free speech as well Ed Husic?
ED HUSIC:
I think that there’s absolutely a place for reasoned argument, for logical examination of issues, not one that seeks to marginalise one section of the community from the other. I’ve got no issue with it. And I also, I’ve copped my fair share and I’m only a backbencher, but you’ll get people that will be critical of you and I think a lot of people going into politics have a thick skin. I don’t think that really this is what’s at the heart of what the Coalition are talking about. As I said, they’re supposed to be the party of Liberalism but they take a very convenient view, if I could put it, on these issues.
KIERAN GILBERT:
Ok let’s get Senator Fifield’s thoughts on this. Firstly on this proposal to repeal Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, is this going to allow the sort of language and arguments that we don’t want to see in this country that could see people prejudiced?
MITCH FIFIELD:
There’s zero tolerance on the part of the Coalition for actions or behaviour or words that incite hatred or incite racial prejudice. But there’s a big difference between that and words which may simply cause offence. I don’t think that you can outlaw bad journalism or journalism that may cause some people offence. And that’s really the issue that was at play in the case of Mr Bolt. Some people may have found what he said offensive but there’s a big difference between that and actually inciting hatred. I think Tony’s fundamental thesis today is that the Australian Labor Party has an issue with certain news organisations and it has an issue with coverage that it doesn’t like. And so it is looking for different mechanisms to seek to shut down criticism. To seek to shut down those particular journalists that it doesn’t like. Government should be in the business of seeking to promote freedom of expression and freedom of choice even if the government of the day doesn’t like that. I’ve got to say, this government gives journalists plenty of material to work with.
KIERAN GILBERT:
Senator Fifeld, I’ll come back to you in a moment Ed Husic, but I do want to put to Senator Fifield something, I’ve been here long enough to remember Richard Alston I think lodge over sixty complaints about the ABC around the Iraq War coverage. So the Coalition in government sung a different tune didn’t it?
MITCH FIFIELD:
No not at all. The ABC is a taxpayer funded broadcaster and it does a good job. But any individual citizen, be they a member of the parliament or a member of the public is entitled to put forward if they think that a particular conflict isn’t receiving balanced coverage. I think that’s all that Richard Alston was seeking. I don’t think that Richard Alston was proposing, and the Coaliton has never proposed, taking away the editorial independence of the ABC or putting restrictions on them, contrary to what Ed said.
KIERAN GILBERT:
That’s a good point and let’s put it to Ed then. Ed Husic, this is a media council backed by federal law. Isn’t this a slippery slope when it comes to freedom of the media that you do want to keep it as a separate arm from the parliament? It’s a pillar of our democracy, isn’t it?
ED HUSIC:
Well I think we’re still going through all the recommendations of the Finkelstein Review and trying to work out obviously what our response will be to that. So it’s not, this is all, and it’s basically a great sign that we’re debating it. I mean we’re all having an opportunity to have input and say on the issue. But if I can just go back to a point Kieran, just from what Tony Abbott has written himself in today’s papers in the Australian, he says “we would be prepared to maintain a prohibition on inciting hatred against or intimidation of particular racial groups”. We would be prepared is not ironclad, it’s not definite, it’s almost saying like this is up for grabs as to whether or not we’ll continue to support it. I take on board what Mitch said a few moments ago, and certainly that may be his position, but you need to contrast that against the words of the Leader of the Opposition in today’s press.
KIERAN GILBERT:
Ok well what about on that issue of a media oversight body backed by federal parliament, an oversight body authorised by parliament. Isn’t that a worry when free media has been as I say, one of the pillars of our democracy since federation?
ED HUSIC:
Well I go back to my words earlier Kieran and before it. I go back to my words earlier Kieran that these are only proposals that are being put forward, that need consideration of government and obviously we need to go through that process of taking into account both reports, including the convergence report as well, before we make a decision.
KIERAN GILBERT:
Has the Government been too quick to blame the media for bad coverage instead of accepting the responsibility for their own mistakes?
ED HUSIC:
I don’t think so, I think it’s been the case and as I was saying earlier, in public life you’re going to get pretty as they say robust views about what you do and you’ve just got to get on with it.
KIERAN GILBERT:
Senator Fifield, isn’t this just a cycle of politics that whoever is in government has a gripe with the press?
MITCH FIFIELD:
Sure, every government has a gripe with the press. I mean I don’t think that anyone would ever say that the media were ever particularly fond of John Howard or gave him a particularly fair go. But John Howard didn’t seek to introduce new legislatively backed organisations with powers to set media standards. He just copped it on the chin and got about the business of trying to explain what his government was doing. This Government has taken an entirely different approach. They’re talking about things like public interest tests as to who are, in effect, appropriate people to have control of media interests. That’s positively Orwellian. Having a government body that can seek to enforce media standards. Again, that’s positively Orwellian. Who determines the standards? Who enforces the standards? What we want is a robust political culture. That is the greatest safeguard.
KIERAN GILBERT:
Senator Fifield and Ed Husic, gents thanks for that this morning. Have a good week.