Showdown with Peter van Onselen

Subjects: leadership, economic policy, high dollar, same-sex marriage.

Transcript, E&OE

14 February 2012

PETER VAN ONSELEN: Welcome back. You're watching Showdown, and we're joined now out of Parliament House by Dr Craig Emerson, the Trade Minister. Dr Emerson, thanks for your company.

CRAIG EMERSON: It's a pleasure, Peter.

VAN ONSELEN: You know where we're going to go to start this interview. We've got to talk about Four Corners; we've got to talk about the leadership problems. You spoke about them earlier today. Now I realise …

EMERSON: Is this a long-form interview?

VAN ONSELEN: It's not as long a form interview as the Prime Minister had on Four Corners.

EMERSON: So it falls in between. I shouldn't be doing it, according to your advice.

VAN ONSELEN: No, you can do this. I made the point in the editorial that you can avoid the questions here because it's harder, 'cause I've got a clock right there in front of me that is ticking away, and I can't keep you here for two and a half hours.

EMERSON: I just wanted to check, because you reckon we shouldn't be doing long-form interviews: just go out on doorstops and do a little 30-second grab, turn on our heels and go back inside.

VAN ONSELEN: This is media tactics right here and now; you've wasted 45 seconds of my time. Let's get on with it. So, Julia Gillard: you're backing her — I realise that — but you also backed Kevin Rudd before the coup that occurred, which was Four Corners' topic of conversation. You must have a little bit of 'I told you so' happening.

EMERSON: I'm a strong supporter of Julia Gillard. She's a great leader; she's a reforming leader. And we're working very hard on policy, as we have in the previous years, to both grow the economy and modernise it, and make sure that the benefits of that economic growth are fairly shared, including through the mining tax which, as you know Peter, would increase superannuation for working Australians, provide small business with tax breaks and company tax breaks for those companies that are not in the fast lane. That's what we're concentrating on.

VAN ONSELEN: But this is a serious question, because I've written about the fact that I think …

EMERSON: I just gave you a serious answer.

VAN ONSELEN: And to that, to that, this is a serious point, because I've written before about the fact that I think this Government gets a harsher rap than it deserves. I've got criticisms; everyone does. But I don't think it's been as bad as a lot of its detractors say — certainly not as bad as the Opposition says.

EMERSON: That's very generous of you, Peter.

VAN ONSELEN: Now Twitter will erupt and tell me now that I'm a crazy left-winger, after calling me a crazy right-winger over the last 15 minutes of this program. But the serious question …

EMERSON: They'll just agree you're crazy.

VAN ONSELEN: The serious question for you out of this — and you're chewing up my time again — the serious question for you is …

EMERSON: Well it's been a long question.

VAN ONSELEN: Like it or not, you've got a situation where the polls are bad; the speculation is all about Rudd; he's not going away. It's probably in his best personal interests for Julia Gillard to fail, because that improves his personal legacy in justifying why he shouldn't have been rolled in the first place. How do you break out of all of that to make the messages that you're trying to sell be heard rather than sound like sound bites?

EMERSON: You say I'm chewing up your time. That was a very long question, all about politics. My interest in Parliament House, the reason I sought pre-selection was my interest in policy. And it is policy that interests the Australian people. It interests them …

VAN ONSELEN: Not at the moment, I don't think. At the moment they wonder what's going on.

EMERSON: Well that's really a question of judgement, isn't it? Because I actually fundamentally believe — and my mentor and someone I worked for, Bob Hawke, believed — that the Australians have a huge dose of common sense. They understand that the real debates that matter are the debates that affect issues such as interest rates, the cost of living and, very importantly, creating high-skilled, high-wage jobs for the future. They're the great debates. And, sure, we're here; we're having a debate; you said it'd be on the economy. I didn't come down in the last shower: I knew you'd spend a good slab of it on politics. I actually fundamentally believe that the Australian people are interested in policy. If you want to have an interview about politics, let's do it. But that's your judgement.

VAN ONSELEN: No, no. I'll come to what you want to talk about. We'll talk about policy.

EMERSON: I'm happy to talk about whatever you want.

VAN ONSELEN: Well let's go straight to jobs. Because that was something you raised today. Now this was something raised by Simon Crean in his interview with David Speers on PM Agenda this afternoon. I'll just quickly play the clip for you.

SIMON CREAN (CLIP): But in our last four years we've created more than 700,000 jobs. Howard's Government, in their last four years, created less than 600,000 jobs.

VAN ONSELEN: Okay, now he's right about the 700,000 jobs but he's wrong about the 600,000. I've got the ABS data here: it's over a million jobs in the last four years of the Howard Government.

EMERSON: Well, okay. I haven't got the ABS figures in front of me, but what I can absolutely confirm is that there have been 700,000 new jobs under this Government. And if we want to do comparisons on the economy, and those variables that effect jobs: interest rates, 4 1/4 per cent under Labor; 6 3/4 per cent under the Coalition; a trade surplus of $19 billion last year. That is a record for a calendar year. Why is that important? It's not just a statistic. It means that our exporters, our farmers, our small businesses, even our manufacturers are benefiting from the policies that we've implemented. Accolades from the Reserve Bank, accolades from international institutions and, indeed Peter, accolades from Tony Abbott when he said, when he went overseas, that our economic record here right now is enviable. But when he's back in Australia he says 'oh it's all going really badly and there's all this debt', and all this sort of stuff. When he's overseas and he's obligated to be non-partisan, he actually describes our economic performance as enviable. On that, Mr Abbott is right.

VAN ONSELEN: All right. Fair point. But nonetheless my point is why is Simon Crean not referring to all the things you just did, because he doesn't have a doctorate in economics like you do. Maybe he's not aware of them. He's referring to a figure that — I've got the data here — is not right; a comparison that's probably the one that he should have avoided. On another issue relating to the economy: you're Trade Minister — the high Aussie dollar is a problem. Paul Howes wrote an article in the Sunday Telegraph about it. He's very concerned about it. He's very concerned that the Reserve Bank aren't passing on … aren't cutting interest rates and the banks ipso facto aren't passing them on. As Trade Minister, do you agree with him that the high Aussie dollar is not something for Australians to be proud of, but rather something that we should be extremely worried about?

EMERSON: Well it certainly is a burden, Peter, on our traded sector: that is, our exporters and those businesses that are competing against imports. But at the same time it's a vote of confidence in the Australian economy, because we've got long-term investors putting in $450 billion worth of investment. Again, the Reserve Bank Statement on Monetary Policy on Friday said that we're going to have investment at a 50-year high as a share of GDP. That's what you get when you're putting $450 billion worth of investment into this country. That does force the dollar up. And what they're doing is they're punting on Australia because we are integrated into this region — the Asian Region in the Asian Century — as a result of the foresight of previous Labor governments. We're building on that through the Asian Century White Paper exercise launched by Julia Gillard, and that's what we're talking about. Yes, there are some job losses; there's no doubt. No one wants those, but the economy is continuing to transform. We're going to not just sit back and let it happen; we're going to shape that transformation to produce a high-skill, high wage economy for the future, so that all Australians and not just the mining companies and a few rich individuals get the benefits of the mining boom.

VAN ONSELEN: Going to this issue of the high dollar, do you think it's something that is here to stay? Because the sort of boom that you're talking about — the realities of the zone that you're in, in the looming Asian Century — I think that's all right; I agree with you. It sort of sends the message in a sense, doesn't it, that we've got this high dollar like it or not, because we are a strong economy. Now, that being the case, where does that leave us in terms of the trade-exposed industries where the high dollar's a problem?

EMERSON: Well in fact many of our industries are succeeding in spite of the high dollar. And I'll give you an example Peter. We've been talking about manufacturing and, yes, it is certainly under pressure. But manufactured exports of highly sophisticated goods to China in the last decade have increased 230 per cent — from Australia. From Australia! And our exports of those same goods to the United States and United Kingdom have actually declined by more than 20 per cent. So, this is a good example of Australian manufacturers actually being able to compete successfully, here in our own region, exporting into China despite the high dollar. And we'll continue to work with those businesses.

VAN ONSELEN: What's the difference with the car sector, then, in terms of the elements that are struggling and indeed aluminium and so forth? What is the key difference — serious question?

EMERSON: Well, the key consideration here is that the car industry itself is continuing to modernise. And I know that there is this critique that has come from some quarters that we shouldn't be supporting the car industry at all, in any way, shape or form for any purpose. I've had a look at the effective rates of protection for the automotive industry in this country, and in fact it was the Hawke/Keating Government that started reducing that and it's been falling gradually for 20 years, Peter. Now at current levels it is at a very low level in historical terms. But we actually believe that the car industry has a strong future in this country, but it does need some co-investment from government. We're prepared to do that. You want alternatives? Mr Abbott said he'd yank half a billion dollars out of that. Sophie Mirabella has been running around saying 'we're the manufacturing workers friends'. Tony Abbott, the same thing: the hard hats, the vests and all that sort of stuff. But, in fact, what they want to do is take half a billion dollars out of support. Just as on the steel transformation plan. Peter, I was in the Parliament late at night when we separated the support for the steel industry from the carbon pricing legislation, allowing Mr Abbott and his team to vote for the steel industry. He led the no's. He said 'the no's have it', and of course they all fell in behind him. And yet he has the temerity to go around steel works saying he's their friends. He'd cut their throats. He'd cut their throats.

VAN ONSELEN: Final question, given that you chewed up all my time, Dr Emerson.

EMERSON: Speaking about economics.

VAN ONSELEN: This is on an entirely different topic. I saw an article in The Australian today in the A Plus section saying you were one of the MPs who hadn't yet declared your hand on where you sit on the issue of gay marriage. Now there's a number of Private Member's Bills that are going before the Parliament. What is your view on this? Are you generally in favour of it, or generally opposed to it?

EMERSON: Well, my view is reflected in no fewer than 10 transcripts going back to mid-2009, which I've now sent to The Australian newspaper, including statements yesterday on radio in the morning reaffirming my position, which has been the simple position, which is: I believe marriage is a union between a man and a woman. I've said it 10 times; I've just said it an 11th time.

VAN ONSELEN: All right, fair enough. I wasn't meaning to get my colleague in to trouble there at The Oz, but there you go.

EMERSON: Well, I'm just giving you the facts.

VAN ONSELEN: Dr Craig Emerson, we appreciate you joining us on Showdown. As always, thanks for your company.

EMERSON: Righto. Thanks Peter.

Media enquiries