Minister Plibersek TV interview on Seven Sunrise
E&OE TRANSCRIPT
Topics: Harbour Bridge Protest; Work From Home; Energy Policy.
NATALIE BARR: Well, a historic pro-Palestine protest along the Sydney Harbour Bridge attracted roughly 90,000 participants, who braved rain to send a message about the plight of Palestinians in Gaza to the world. But legal experts say this demonstration on Australia’s most iconic landmark may not be the last, with no law preventing future applications for protests on the bridge. It’s led to fears that disruptions on the bridge may become more frequent. For their take, let’s bring in Social Services Minister Tanya Plibersek and Nationals MP Barnaby Joyce. Good morning to both of you. Tanya, does this set a precedent for future protests?
TANYA PLIBERSEK, MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES: I think even the organisers have said that there’s no intention to have another bridge walk. I think most Australians understand that the peaceful right to protest is important in our democracy, but we wouldn’t want to see the Harbour Bridge shut down every weekend for something like this. I think most of the reports have said that the crowd was well behaved. That’s very good. And at the end of the day, I think many Australians do want to send a message that there’s just been too much death, too many people have lost their lives, and we want to see the hostages return. We want to see humanitarian access to Gaza. We particularly don’t want to see children starving to death as a result of this conflict.
BARR: Tanya, there are a lot of causes that people are passionate about and there may be others. Do you think the bridge will be allowed to be used? And other people will say, look, this is how we can get worldwide attention now that the courts have let this in.
MINISTER PLIBERSEK: Well, I was one of the 250,000 people who marched across the bridge for reconciliation. I marched across the bridge. I think it was the 75th anniversary of the bridge a few years ago as well. I don’t think this is something that should happen every day, but, you know, within reason, we have a peaceful right to protest in this country. And if protest organisers arrange things with police with sufficient warning, if the crowd behaves well-
BARR: The police argued against it, though. They didn’t want-
MINISTER PLIBERSEK: It’s part of our democracy. Yep. And I’m relieved that the worries that they had didn’t come to pass. I think it’s clear that the organisers of this protest have said that they’re not planning another one across the bridge. So, I don’t think we need to worry about quite yet about the bridge being shut, you know, every second weekend.
BARR: Yeah, well, the police have praised the behaviour, Barnaby, of the people. At least 90,000 people. It sounds like it was a success. Do you support it?
BARNABY JOYCE: Well, look, you really are, with 90,000 people, opening up the odds for somebody to do something stupid. And, I read in the paper this morning before coming on the show, there was concerns about what would happen if there was a rush, what would happen. It’s not just the issue of the protest, it’s about what could go wrong in a protest, like what could go wrong in any big crowd. And I think you’re courting problems. I think the concerns that were, have been voiced by many, have to be taken into account. It’s not just the issue about the protests; it’s about the safety of the people actually in the protest if something goes wrong. And yes, it does create a precedent. Once you’ve got one issue saying, well, this is really important to us, and I’ve got no, I don’t doubt for one second how important this is. Everybody wants to see an end to the war, but you create a precedent where other groups say, “well, this is my really big issue and I want to walk across the Harbour Bridge and here’s another big issue and I want to shut down the Harbour Bridge”. And no, that’s not how it’s supposed to work.
BARR: Ok, let’s move on to something else. The Victorian Government’s promised to legislate working from home for two days a week might actually hit a legal snag. Experts are saying it may not actually be enforceable. That is due to a section in the Constitution which says if state and federal law cover the same area, like workplace relations does in the private sector, then federal law prevails. Tanya, what do you think of this proposal?
MINISTER PLIBERSEK: Well, I think a lot of Australians really value the opportunity to work from home a couple of days a week and particularly avoid some of those long commutes. And I think Barnaby is going to have to be very careful here, because when Peter Dutton tried to get rid of work from home, I think Barnaby got in trouble from Vicky, who Barney said is a keen user of work from home on occasion. Look, if it can be done sensibly and it supports families, takes a little bit of pressure off them-
BARR: But legislating. That’s the key, Tanya.
MINISTER PLIBERSEK: It’s a matter for the Victorian Government how that would happen. But we know that Australians value it and when Peter Dutton tried to get rid of it in the last election, there was quite a backlash.
BARR: Should the Victorian Government try and legislate, though, Tanya, that’s very different to sort of suggesting or allowing.
MINISTER PLIBERSEK: Yeah, that’s up to the Victorian Government. We’re not going to put a tick or a cross.
BARR: Well, maybe it’s not.
MINISTER PLIBERSEK: We’re not marking their homework, let’s put it that way.
BARR: Well, the lawyers are lining up saying you can.
MINISTER PLIBERSEK: Well, we’ve made it very clear. We’re making it very clear that we support work from home at a federal level as long as it can be done sensibly in negotiation between employers and employees. We’ve got a lot of public servants, for example, who work a couple of days a week from home. It’s supported productivity. We’ve worked out during COVID that sometimes we’re more productive at home when we don’t have constant interruptions and, you know, breaking for someone’s birthday cake every afternoon.
BARR: Yeah, we know that but would you back legislating? Would you overrule? Because it sounds like from the lawyer’s point of view, the Commonwealth will be able to overrule this and stop legislating two days.
MINISTER PLIBERSEK: Well, Victorian legislation’s a matter for the Victorian Government. Our position as a Commonwealth Government is very clear. We support work from home
BARR: Legislation?
MINISTER PLIBERSEK: Of course it needs to be in sensible situations, but we’ve made it very clear with our public servants that we support work from home if it fits in with their working pattern.
BARR: So not legislating. Okay.
MINISTER PLIBERSEK. So, it can be done from home. If you’re a nurse in emergency, you can’t work from home. If you’re a bus driver, you can’t work from home. But we support work from home for Australian workers where it’s practical, that fits in with the requirements of their job.
BARR: Barnaby, would you support legislating working from home two days a week?
JOYCE: No. No, I wouldn’t. I think it’s something that’s got to be worked out between the employer and the employee and it’s just as silly, legislating that you can is just as silly as saying you’re not allowed to. There are certain requirements for many jobs that you have to go into an office or into a hospital. I think if there’s an agreement that can be worked out between the employer and the employee and everybody’s happy, well, it’s not for us to jump into that space, but th
e government legislating is doing precisely that. It’s jumping into the space, and I don’t think the government should be there. I think you should leave that up between the employer and the employee.
BARR: Okay. Finally, Barnaby, you posted a video on social media that’s caught a lot of attention. You standing in snow. There you are slamming the United Nations, calling net zero a lunatic policy. What’s going on here?
JOYCE: Well, what’s happening is we’re seeing so many people in, we had massive snow here during the weekend. Poor people are just getting poorer. We are making them destitute. They can’t afford their power. We are doing this to people in Australia and it’s outrageous and it’s premised around this lunatic policy called Net Zero. We are not going to achieve Net Zero. We are going to deindustrialise Australia. We are going to basically smash the Australian economy. And we now see here them expanding this, the so called, what used to be the Productivity Commission talking about expanding the safeguard mechanism to make it even harder for manufacturing to come to Australia or heavy industry to come to Australia. We’ve just got to have a reality check. This is not working. It is a crazy policy and it’s got to be ditched and we’ve got to realise that, that ultimately, you’re hurting the poorest. And a day like that day, there are people in that village who can’t afford their power and once upon a time they could.
BARR: And, so obviously climate change is increasing heavy snow and rainfall and changes, Barnaby. So, that’s going to happen more, isn’t it?
JOYCE: We’re not going to change this pact with our Net Zero policy. It’s just incredulous that people would think that our domestic Net Zero policy that’s not participated by the majority of the people and the majority of the economy of the globe is going to do anything but hurt us. It is crazy.
BARR: Ok, Tanya?
MINISTER PLIBERSEK: Nat, we need to do our share of a global effort. And, what Barnaby never tells you is what’s his alternative. We all agree we need cheaper power. Renewables are the cheapest form of new energy under his government, 24- they are, Barnaby. 24 coal fired power stations said they were going to close and Barnaby had no solution for replacing them. Then they come up with this crazy nuclear plan that would have provided 4 per cent of our energy at the cost of $350 billion. What is his plan? If he doesn’t want renewables, what does he want? If he doesn’t want renewables, what does he want? Barnaby, you’re still not answering.
JOYCE: You just can’t say that up is down.
MINISTER PLIBERSEK: Where does the power come from?
JOYCE: Power prices, Tanya, are going up. They’re going up with intermittents. They’re not renewables. They’re a swindle-
MINISTER PLIBERSEK: Because we had decades-
JOYCE: They’re owned by domestic billionaires, overseas companies and they’re forcing the power up. [Inaudible].
MINISTER PLIBERSEK: -we had a decade of inaction from you. Coal fired power stations said they were closing, and you had no plan to replace them. Where does the power come from? Where’s the power coming from?
JOYCE: [Inaudible]. I would go back to coal-fired power. I would go back to coal-fired power.
BARR: Back to coal.
MINISTER PLIBERSEK: Oh, there you go. And what will that cost?
JOYCE: Well, I’ll tell you what it’s going to be-
BARR: They’re closing them down because they’re old and clunky and cost a fortune, don’t they Barnaby?
JOYCE: They’re closing them down because we have a policy, we have a policy. You have a policy that says you’ll never use them anymore.
MINISTER PLIBERSEK: They’re falling apart. It’s like driving a 50-year-old car around.
JOYCE: They’re closing down because you have a policy that says you’ll never use them anymore.
BARR: They were closing down under the Coalition government by the dozen, weren’t they?
JOYCE: Well they’re, but these, it what it [inaudible]
MINISTER PLIBERSEK: 24. 24 were going to close because they were too old to keep going.
JOYCE: Look, we can talk over each other, but I’ll tell you what, look at your power bill. That’s how intermittents are going, that’s how-
MINISTER PLIBERSEK: Because the coal-fired power stations look so pretty.
BARR: A lot of reasons. Ok look, I’d love to chat, but I think we’ve sort of chatted a bit. Thank you very much. We’ll see you next week, guys.