Sky News AM Agenda with David Lipson

Subjects: Newspoll, asylum-seekers, NSW mining royalties.

Transcript, E&OE

06 September 2011

DAVID LIPSON: On our panel this morning, the Shadow Attorney-General Senator George Brandis is in Brisbane. George thanks for joining us this morning. And here in Canberra …

GEORGE BRANDIS: Good morning David.

LIPSON: … the Trade Minister Craig Emerson.

Minister, first to you: the primary vote as we heard there didn't actually move, but it's historically low. Julia Gillard's personal ratings have slumped even further. Is there any talk whatsoever of replacing her before the next election?

CRAIG EMERSON: No, there's not. And I listened intently to what Martin [O'Shannessy, from Newspoll] was saying, and that the position of the Coalition now is comparable to that after 9-11. And let's go back a few months before that to when the Coalition, under John Howard's leadership, lost the Ryan by-election. I think they were expected to win the state election in Western Australia and they didn't, and Kim Beazley was preferred Prime Minister by a very large margin over John Howard.

Why do I say that? The reason is that shifted quite profoundly in a matter of a few months. And then the Coalition did win the 2001 election, not as strongly as that 9-11 result would indicate. And so …

LIPSON: Does that mean that only a Black Swan event like 9-11 could save Labor?

EMERSON: Not it doesn't: it means that I think that polls sort of tap into a mood at a particular time, notwithstanding that the question is 'if an election was held next Saturday what would you do?' There isn't an election next Saturday, people know that, and of course the High Court decision, which I respect, on the asylum-seeker issue did invalidate the Malaysian solution. But in the same stroke of the pens of the judges, it also has invalidated – or gone as close as possible as you can to invalidate – John Howard's and Tony Abbott's Nauru solution.

LIPSON: Stephen Smith – we spoke to him a little earlier this hour about the leadership issue, among a number of other issues. Let's just hear what he said.

[Excerpt from previous interview with Defence Minister Stephen Smith]

STEPHEN SMITH: There's no vacancy. These things are not in contemplation. I strongly support the Prime Minister and her very determined efforts to work the Government and the country through a series of difficult policy challenges that we have.

The poll that we see today – and you're quite right, I don't normally get into the detail of an individual poll, because I hate using the cliché but there's only one poll that counts and that will be a poll some time in September, October, November of 2013. Of course today we'll see some reflection in an opinion poll about recent events.

[End of excerpt]

LIPSON: Now, this morning on breakfast television, Peter Beattie refused to deny that he's been approached to be parachuted into the Federal party. Stephen Smith there said he hasn't been approached to lead Labor. Has anyone sounded you out at all Craig Emerson?

EMERSON: [Laughs] No, no, no and there's no such discussion. And, look, Peter's a great guy. He's a friend of mine, Peter Beattie. But you know, we often hear of people coming into Parliament and taking on the mantle of a Messiah and so on.

We've got a good a leader in Julia Gillard. What defines her leadership is her assiduous interest in the national interest; her only interest is the national interest. And that means making tough decisions today for the securing of the future of Australia tomorrow. That's not always popular.

But we've always resolved not to talk about polls and there's been legitimate criticism of previous Governments for being poll-driven and rolling out of bed and all this sort of stuff. But what Julia Gillard does each time is says what is the decision that is in the national interest and she makes it.

LIPSON: Senator Brandis, Tony Abbott is well ahead now as preferred Prime Minister. It's the sixth Newspoll in a row that he's been ahead of Julia Gillard. But his net satisfaction rating is still in negative territory, isn't it?

BRANDIS: Um, well look, I don't think that's right actually. It's … when I … according to my cursory reading of the poll this morning, but it's a…

LIPSON: Net satisfaction rating about negative 13 per cent, according to the Newspoll.

BRANDIS: Look David, I … is that right? Well I think people, you know, compare one leader with another and there's no doubt who is preferred by the Australian people and there's no doubt which party is preferred by the Australian people.

But can I just make this point David? This isn't – and I, to an extent, I agree with Craig Emerson actually – this isn't just about Julia Gillard. I mean the problem here is not just that Julia Gillard has led what is almost universally now regarded as a failed government. The problem is that the Government – the Prime Minister – that she replaced a Kevin Rudd-led failed government. That Labor governments in the states, whether it was in New South Wales or Western Australia or here in Queensland have been catastrophic failures.

The problem isn't – for the Labor Party – isn't Julia Gillard. Julia Gillard alone didn't bring this political doom upon herself. The problem is the Labor Party and the way in which they govern.

LIPSON: Well, this latest slump has got to be attributed largely to the asylum-seeker ruling by the High Court last week. Yesterday George Brandis …

BRANDIS: Well I don't know that that's right.

LIPSON: Geor… well…

BRANDIS: I don't know that that's right David. Because if you … if you look … if you look at the Labor – the Labor primary vote, the Labor primary vote fell off a cliff some months ago when the Prime Minister broke her promise that there'd be no carbon tax under the Government that she leads.

LIPSON: Sure, but it's further slumped…

BRANDIS: And it's not recovered since.

LIPSON: … since last week.

BRANDIS: Oh sure.

LIPSON: The Newspoll was actually taken directly after that High Court ruling. But what I wanted to ask you, Senator, was that yesterday the Prime Minister said that the Opposition has to come to grips with the legal advice that's been provided to the Government.

Do you accept that there is a legal risk to processing asylum seekers in Nauru under the current legislation before Parliament?

BRANDIS: Well, I suspect I'm one of the only people in Parliament who has come to grips with the legal advice, because I've actually read it and studied it – which plainly the Prime Minister has not.

This is the position David: the legal advice affirms what the High Court said, that obviously the Malaysia solution is out. In relation to Nauru, what the Solicitor-General says is that it's still possible, but he expresses himself in a very qualified and very caveat-ed way, as one would expect given that the Government and its legal advisers were taken by surprise by the High Court's decision last week.

So what he says is 'I couldn't be confident that the Nauru solution would pass muster'. And in the end his advice is inconclusive. Now, in my view – in my view – it follows as clear as can be from the High Court's decision, which didn't deal with Nauru and which didn't strike down the provisions of the Migration Act …

LIPSON: So…

BRANDIS: … which were put in place to give effect to the Pacific Solution.

LIPSON: So you don't think the legislation needs to be changed?

BRANDIS: No, let … let me … let me put this in my own words: that if Nauru were to make itself compliant with all its obligations under Section 198 – sorry, under the UN Refugee Convention and Section 198a of the Australian Migration Act – then the Nauru solution would work. But I do acknowledge that there is a sufficient area of doubt that it would be prudent and desirable to put the matter beyond doubt by legislative change.

LIPSON: Well, yesterday the Immigration Minister Chris Bowen made it pretty clear that Malaysia is still the aim of the Government when it comes to offshore processes. Let's hear what he told David Speers yesterday.

[Excerpt of previous interview with Immigration Minister Chris Bowen]

CHRIS BOWEN: What we were trying to achieve with the Malaysian agreement and is still our aim, is to have the impact of returning people to where they started their boat journey, in an orderly fashion, with the protections built in. So to say to people 'don't get on the boat because you're not going to achieve anything...'

[End of interview]

LIPSON: Craig Emerson, you were part of the Cabinet meeting: I don't expect you to tell us…

EMERSON: [Laughs] I'm relieved.

LIPSON: …what was said inside that … inside that meeting. But does Malaysia have to be part of any deal that is brokered with the Opposition when it comes to amending legislation?

EMERSON: Well, as Chris summarised there, all the advice to us – and it's also commonsense; it doesn't have to be highfaluting legal advice – is that Malaysia is a solution that does actually break the people-smuggling model. That is that people come from a source country to Malaysia, to Indonesia, to Christmas Island. If they go back from where they came, that is Malaysia, that breaks the people-smuggling model whereas Nauru doesn't.

LIPSON: Sure, but practically that's been sent back by the High Court…

EMERSON: Well, you'd need legislation; you'd need legislation, that's right.

LIPSON: So you need legislation. And under that legislation would … if you're to make a deal with the Opposition – as we believe you have to, because the Greens have said they're going to block it – would you only accept Malaysia as part of any legislative changes.

EMERSON: We're open to all options, but the Coalition needs to be as well. And that is to not play politics and say the only amendment that they would contemplate is one that enables Nauru and Manus, but nowhere else. That's just straight politics if they do that.

Yesterday there seemed to be indications from Mr Abbott that he was prepared genuinely to engage. Today – that doesn't mean that the media reports are accurate – but they are suggesting he's going to say 'no, no, Malaysia's out' – it can only be what they did in the past, which is Nauru and Manus. And the advice that we have is that Nauru doesn't break the people-smugglers model.

And I know George will say 'but the boats stopped, the boats stopped'. The point is that 75 per cent or more of those who were taken to Nauru ended up back in Australia.

LIPSON: George Brandis, would you accept an agreement, or would the Opposition accept an agreement, with the Government that included, for example, Nauru and Malaysia?

BRANDIS: Well look, this is the area for which I'm the Opposition's spokesman; so I think that what you should do David is take Mr Abbott's statement yesterday at his press conference as being the last word on the Opposition's position.

LIPSON: Okay. The other matter, of course, Craig Emerson, is the internal ructions when it comes to this issue. Members of the Left have made it very clear that they want to use this opportunity to bring in onshore processing. How heated is that debate and … or how robust is that debate in the Party at the moment?

EMERSON: Well, people are entitled to their opinions. And what I think is that the diversity of view within the Caucus reflects the diversity of view that's within the community. There are people within the community who believe only an onshore processing solution is acceptable. Now that's just the truth of the matter – there are such people. There are others who are worried about the risk that that poses in terms of encouraging people to come across the sea; maybe lose their lives – a very large number, a very large number of people arriving unauthorised and, therefore, not through an orderly immigration program – and the views of the Australian people about that.

But there's absolutely no problem in people having a diversity of views, particularly as a parliament should reflect the diversity of opinion within the general public.

LIPSON: Okay, we're going to…

BRANDIS: Well look, it's all…

LIPSON: … going … just … yep

BRANDIS: It's all very charming to hear Craig talk about a diversity of view…

EMERSON: You've never called me charming before.

BRANDIS: That's a … that's a euphemism for a deep policy split in this Government from the top to the bottom – from the Cabinet to the Caucus.

EMERSON: Well, there's plenty of diversity of views about Tony Abbott: like people saying 'we think we might have to pull the plug on him, because he's being an economic vandal'.

LIPSON: Okay, well let's move on. We've got to take a break, but we'll be back after this very short commercial break.

[Unrelated item – commercial break]

LIPSON: Welcome back to the program.

Well, the New South Wales Government releases its Budget today, and it contains a nasty surprise for the Gillard Government. The O'Farrell Government is planning on increasing mining royalties to the tune of close to a billion dollars over three years, and essentially that will be passed on to Canberra to pick up the bill under the agreement brokered in the mining tax.

Joining me still on our panel, Craig Emerson and George Brandis.

Craig Emerson, first to you. Would the Government retaliate with GST funding, or infrastructure funding for example?

EMERSON: Well, we do need to protect the Budget bottom line – that's the truth of it and we're going to return the Budget to surplus. It was George Brandis who actually said the Budget should never have gone into deficit; well, he should apply the same principle to New South Wales because the suggestions are that they're going into deficit.

And the second point I'd make is that this is a repudiation of Tony Abbot who, during the debate about mining taxation, said the mining industry already pays too much tax. Well, Barry O'Farrell and Mike Baird don't believe that. They think that they should pay more. Tony Abbott doesn't. We think that the mining industry is capable of paying more but, of course, we need to protect the Commonwealth's finances.

LIPSON: So just to be clear, would you up or lower the…

EMERSON: Well, I'm not going into what we may or may not do, but we just can't be in a position where states do the exact opposite of what their Federal Liberal leader says, and that is hike taxes when he says that they're already paying too much tax and then just expect the Commonwealth to pick up the tab.

LIPSON: George Brandis, you're there in Brisbane. Do you think Queensland will follow suit here? WA's already done it.

BRANDIS: No, look … I've no idea what a Labor Government will do in Queensland other than it probably will be a bad idea whatever they do.

But can I respond to what Craig said, David, with … by making two points.

First of all, within the last hour Mr Swan was on AM and he was making very, very direct threats to New South Wales taxpayers that I'm sure they won't miss.

Secondly, this is entirely as a result of the proposed carbon tax. As Mr O'Farrell said last night, this $950 million increase over four years is in order to recoup, for the state-owned electricity assets in New South Wales, the cost to which the Federal Labor Government is exposing them by introducing the carbon tax.

Now we have this policy anomaly that in Victoria, where there are privately-owned power generators, the Commonwealth is compensating those privately-owned power generators under its carbon tax package, but in New South Wales, where there are state-owned generators, the Commonwealth is not proposing to compensate.

Now, whether they're privately-held or publicly-owned, the fact is that New South Wales taxpayers are being treated differently from Victorian taxpayers by the Commonwealth Government. So, the New South Wales Government, protecting the interests of its taxpayers – and as a direct result of this carbon tax – is being forced to increase these royalties.

EMERSON: David, where else have you heard a politician saying 'look, we don't want to increase your taxes but we have to because it's someone else's fault'? This is straight out of the old copy book.

BRANDIS: Those are direct costs…

EMERSON: This is just standard…

BRANDIS: … that you're imposing on the New South Wales taxpayers.

EMERSON: …standard operating procedures for a level of government that wants to pass the responsibility. 'Oh no, oh no, we're for low taxes – but we're going to increase them.'

The New South Wales bureaucracy, under the leadership of Barry O'Farrell, has put out completely shonky figures about the impact of the carbon pricing mechanism. And this is just an excuse to do what they want to do, and that is increase taxes.

LIPSON: But if, as you said in your first answer a couple of questions ago, that it's so important for the Federal Government to return the Budget to surplus, obviously New South Wales has got to look after its surplus as well. If its…

EMERSON: Well, I don't think it's got one has it?

LIPSON: … if its dividend … oh, its… it's got to look after its books.

LIPSON: My point is … my point is aren't they justified if, you know, dividends from power generators have gone down as a direct result of the carbon tax? Aren't they entitled to try to seek some money back, as you are talking about doing to them?

EMERSON: Well, we, as I say, we consider their figures to be completely shonky. And all they are is an excuse to hike their taxes. I can't say they're definitely in deficit, but that is what the speculation is. George Brandis says a government should never put budgets into deficit. But it turns out what he means is that it's okay for Liberal governments to put budgets into deficit, but it's not okay for Labor governments to put budgets in deficits to save hundreds of thousands of jobs.

And while we're on the subject of deficits, how do we find out how Mr Abbott is going to plug his $70 billion black hole, as confirmed on Sunday by Mr Robb? Mr Robb, who is the…

BRANDIS: I think you getting a bit desperate, Craig, with all due respect…

EMERSON: …Mr Robb who's the Shadow Finance Minister. Mr Abbott is saying this $70 billion is just a myth of the Labor Party and the media. Mr Robb stood him up; said 'no, it's real'. It's the problem that Joe Hockey and I agree that we've got; that is, a $70 billion black hole.

LIPSON: George Brandis, I can hear you want to jump in there.

BRANDIS: Look, I just think that it's more than absurd to hear a Labor politician attacking the recently-elected New South Wales Coalition Government. I mean, we all know where the fiscal problems of New South Wales came from. They came from years of bad Labor administration, and the people of New South Wales passed their judgement on that administration in emphatic terms earlier this year.

Now, the fact is that Mr O'Farrell and Mr Baird are being forced, apparently, to do this, according to what Mr O'Farrell said last night. Because the New South Wales Treasury has done some modelling that indicates the cost of the carbon tax to New South Wales taxpayers over the next four years, purely through the electricity generating assets by the way … not, and for that … on that basis alone, will be about $950 million.

Now, you know, get ready for this. If the carbon tax eventually passes the Parliament, there will not be a level of government, there will not be an activity in which government – state or municipal – engages, in which the cost to taxpayers and ratepayers won't increase directly in consequence of the carbon tax.

LIPSON: Okay. George Brandis, Craig Emerson, unfortunately we're out of time. But thanks very much for your thoughts this morning.

EMERSON: The old cupboard is bare story; the oldest trick in the book!

LIPSON: [Laughs] Thanks for your company on AM Agenda. We'll be back with Lunchtime Agenda and PM Agenda later today and same time tomorrow.

EMERSON: Thank you David.

Media enquiries