Sky News AM Agenda with Kieran Gilbert
E & OE
GILBERT:
This is AM Agenda, with me now the Assistant Social Services Minister, Senator Mitch Fifield. Senator Fifield thanks for your time. Isn’t it good to see an Australian political party have these sort of robust debates, isn’t it good for democracy as we saw that discussion at the weekend at the ALP Conference rather than seeing it as a division as Andrew Leigh argues, isn’t it a sign of a healthy party?
FIFIELD:
Look, the Labor National Conference was nothing short of high-farce Kieran. The Labor Party love to romanticise their conferences that, ‘we cry, we fight, we love, we embrace and isn’t it glorious’, I think we can put that kind of characterisation to one side. I say it’s high-farce because we saw a party that is bitterly divided. Not just amongst its delegates at the conference but at the very heart of the Parliamentary leadership of the Australian Labor Party. You had Anthony Albanese, who is one of the most senior figures in the Labor Party, openly defying his leader. At least he had the guts to openly defy his leader, unlike Penny Wong and Tanya Plibersek who snuck out of the conference on the vote on turn backs, and then sent in proxys to vote the way they really wanted to. I think Penny Wong may have been slightly more consistent than Tanya Plibersek who argued apparently, on no more reliable source than Kim Carr, argued in the Left faction meeting to support Bill, but then couldn’t bring herself to do that and sent in a colleague to vote against Bill. High-farce. It’s a party divided. And it’s a conference that did not address a single issue of significance for the Australian people.
GILBERT:
Well what about that turn backs, that’s a pretty significant one. Bill Shorten took that issue with Richard Marles to the conference, stared down internal opposition, some angst on humanitarian grounds and came out with a tough policy. It basically mirrors yours.
FIFIELD:
Well, look I’ve seen this episode before Kieran. Before the 2007 election Kevin Rudd said that he would turn back the boats. Kevin Rudd said that they were going to be tough when it came to border protection. What we saw when they got into government was the systematic dismantling of every element of our border protection approach that John Howard put in place. So I’ve got no reason not to think that the Labor Party, if they were to form government, would do the same again. Already, they’re using weasel words with turn backs. They’re saying, ‘look it’s an option’, which is basically a nod and a wink to the Left of the Labor Party, that ‘look we’ve got it there that’s something that’s theoretically possible but don’t worry it’s an option that we will chose not to exercise.’ So I take no comfort at all from what Bill Shorten put forward at the Labor conference, because as I say we’ve seen this episode before.
GILBERT:
Isn’t it true that no matter what they came up with, as tough as they deliver their policy you would still be critical of them along these lines?
FIFIELD:
I wouldn’t be if the Labor Party at the conference said, ‘we recognise it was a fundamental error to dismantle the Howard Government measures. We recognise that as a result of the actions that we took in government, we gave the people smugglers a product to sell. We put our hand on our heart and we vow that we will never, ever, ever make that mistake again.’ And if that was overwhelmingly supported by the majority of the caucus, then I might say then, ‘good’. But that’s not what we saw. We saw a completely divided party. We saw them come up with some weasel words. Their heart isn’t in it. And I think one thing the Australian people know, is that you’ve got to have the resolve to see through the policies that you say you will put in place. That’s something we’ve done, that’s something Tony Abbott did, that’s something Scott Morrison did. And you see the results. The boats have stopped. And people have stopped dying at sea.
GILBERT:
Now you’ve heard Andrew Leigh’s take on the Emissions Trading Scheme and his argument that it’s not a tax. Isn’t it fair to say that if that’s a tax, so to is the Direct Action Plan, particularly through the safeguard mechanism which kicks in and would charge emitters a price if they go over business-as-usual levels. So if the Emissions Trading Scheme is a tax, why not Direct Action in that sense?
FIFIELD:
Well I think a couple of weeks ago Kieran, you and myself and Andrew Leigh were on the show and I said that it didn’t matter what you called it, Labor were going to reintroduce a carbon tax and Andrew Leigh said ‘no, no we won’t we’ll introduce an ETS it’s not really a tax’. Joel Fitzgibbon, who we’re very fond of because he’s one of the people who calls it as it is in the Labor Party, he said on the Andrew Bolt programme, ‘look I don’t care what you call it, call it a tax if you will’. He called it what Bill Shorten wouldn’t. Joel was telling the truth. It is, it doesn’t matter whether it’s floating or fixed, it is a tax and we know that it’s going to increase the cost of electricity if Labor form office and get to introduce an ETS. What we’re really looking at, I think though, isn’t the semantics…
GILBERT:
But your programme still cost taxpayers money doesn’t it?
FIFIELD:
Obviously, and it’s transparent that it’s funded from the Budget. But look what we’re talking about, what we’re focussing on, is the real world effects on people at home, the real world effects on industry and business. And there is no doubt that Labor’s ETS would see power prices increase. That’s the objective of it. That’s the purpose of it. Labor want to do what they did last time they were in government, but they want to call it a different thing.
GILBERT:
Sarah Henderson, your colleague in Victoria, wants the Government to have a re-think on the ‘green bank’ as it’s colloquially called, this ban on investing in rooftop solar and wind power, she’s quoted in the Herald Sun suggesting that this morning. So there are those in your party who are very strong supporters of renewal energy clearly and the Member for Corangamite’s one of them.
FIFIELD:
Well the Treasurer and the Finance Minister wrote to the Clean Energy Finance Corporation with a draft investment mandate. That draft investment mandate is open for discussion and consultation. And what motivated the Government to look at the issue of the investment mandate is the original intent of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation which was not to invest in mature technologies, which wind and solar clearly are, it was to seek to support emerging technologies. Now it’s well-known that it’s our policy and our intention to abolish the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, but for so long as it exists, it should seek to focus on what its original intent was, which was to support new and emerging technologies.
GILBERT:
But you can also have innovation in established fields can’t you, so that you can have innovation in the field of solar to make it more efficient, to make it more large-scale in its usage, and I guess that’s the point that Ms Henderson’s arguing in the Herald Sun today.
FIFIELD:
Well as I say, the draft mandate is open for discussion, Sarah Henderson’s made a contribution to that discussion, and the Government will finalise the investment mandate in good time.
GILBERT:
What’s your view on the same sex marriage issue, do you think that Labor’s position yesterday will put more pressure on Mr Abbott to allow a conscience vote for those of your colleagues who support legalising same sex marriage?
FIFIELD:
Kieran look I don’t think we’ll really be effected by the Australian Labor Party. Nor will we be accepting lectures from the likes of Penny Wong, who I heard at the ALP conference yesterday said that what the Labor Party resolution did was see an end to a conscience vote on same sex marriage, a conscience vote that should never have been. I’ve got to say I’m a little perplexed by the Labor position in relation to same sex marriage. But the position of the Coalition is clear. First and foremost, we think that everyone’s views on this issue should be treated with respect. It’s open to any Member of Parliament to introduce a Private Member’s Bill. In the ordinary course of events, Private Member’s Bills don’t often come to a vote. But should a Private Member’s Bill be in a position where it looks like it’ll be voted upon, then that’s a matter that would come to the Coalition Party Room. But it’s the Coalition Party Room that will ultimately determine our position.
GILBERT:
Isn’t the Prime Minister just trying to avoid this coming to a head before the election? If he pushes it beyond the end of this year then he doesn’t have to worry about it before the election, isn’t it pretty transparent that’s what happening here?
FIFIELD:
Well look I don’t think so. The Coalition has a position which is to support the status quo. If that position was to be revisited, it would happen in the circumstance where there was a Bill that was likely to come to a vote, and at that point, it would be up to the Coalition Party Room to determine whether the Coalition had an ongoing policy or not. If it didn’t have an ongoing policy then, as a matter of course, there would be a free vote. If there was an ongoing policy then the usual conditions apply. But as I say, it’s not in the ordinary course of events that Private Senator’s Bills or Private Member’s Bills routinely come to a position where they could be voted upon.
GILBERT:
Senator Fifield, as always appreciate your time this morning thanks for that.