ABC 702 with Richard Glover

coats-arms.jpg

THE HON TANYA PLIBERSEK MP

DEPUTY LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

SHADOW MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

 

E&OE TRANSCRIPT

RADIO INTERVIEW

ABC 702 RICHARD GLOVER

TUESDAY, 13 MAY 2014

SUBJECT/S: THE BUDGET.

RICHARD GLOVER: Rebecca Huntley is social researcher and director of IPSOS Mackay Research. She’s here with me in Sydney alongside Cassandra Wilkinson from the Centre for Independent Studies, welcome to you, too. And in Canberra, Tanya Plibersek’s the Member for Sydney, of course and Deputy Leader of the Australian Labor Party. Tanya, welcome to you as well.

TANYA PLIBERSEK, DEPUTY LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION: Hello Richard, and hi Rebecca and Cass.

GLOVER: Now, brave or mad? That’s the question that some people are asking about Tony Abbott. Is he? Yes, it’s true, break some promises about new taxes but arguably does it for the sake of the country’s long-term financial health. How do you think he’ll be seen after tomorrow’s tough Budget? Tanya Plibersek.

PLIBERSEK: Well, I think it’s really clear that the Commission of Audit is the alibi for a budget of broken promises. Tony Abbott said very clearly before the election, no cuts to health, no cuts to education, no cuts to the ABC, no change to pensions, no new taxes, no tax increases. And it looks like every single one of those commitments is going to be broken on Tuesday.

GLOVER: Now, the guy who ran the Commission of Audit for them, he’s on PM tonight saying look, the main promise was to bring the Budget into surplus again and voters, he’s implying, voters will really see that as the main game and concentrate on that rather than anything else.

PLIBERSEK: I think that that’s completely untrue. You think about the way Tony Abbott behaved after Julia Gillard said “we don’t want to have a carbon tax, we do want to have action on climate change, we want to have a carbon pollution reduction scheme but not a carbon tax”, and then Tony Abbott spent three years saying “broken promise, broken promise”, I don’t know that people are going to cop from him that when he says no cuts to health, no cuts to education, no new taxes, no cuts to the pension, no cuts to the ABC and breaks all those promises, that that’s okay.

GLOVER: We are spending more than what’s coming in the door, this would be a problem if you were in government.

PLIBERSEK: Well, I can give you a terrific example of the wrong priorities that this Government’s got, because we suggested, we had legislation prepared for a $700 million revenue take, where we were closing loopholes that multinational companies were using to offshore their profits. Basically, we had ready to go, $700 million of extra revenue that we could get by preventing companies profit shifting off shore, and the Government’s knocked that back. We had proposals that would’ve reduced some of the very generous benefits that very high income earners get on their superannuation, again the Government’s knocked that back. When I was Health Minister, the Government argued against my savings measures to reduce the cost of older, generic medicines, money that we ended up spending on fantastic, new medicines. Of course, you always need to be looking at the money you’re raising and the way that you’re spending it. You need to make sure you get value for money and you need to make sure that when you’re raising revenue that you’re doing it in the fairest possible way. But you see the crazy priorities of this Government when they’re prepared to spend $5.5 billion a year on an over the top paid parental leave scheme at the same time that they’re cutting pensions, cutting health care, cutting education and putting up taxes that they promised they wouldn’t do.

GLOVER: Let’s come to some of those details of those rumoured changes tomorrow. But Cassandra, first to you. Will it be seen as just a series of broken promises as Tanya says?

CASSANDRA WILKINSON: Maybe, I mean, I think Tanya’s got a point, that if you have argued that you have got to stick to the letter not the spirit of your promises, he’s probably going to be hoisted on that petard in the coming days. But I’d say going back to your original premise, bravery is a term that we should reserve for the reformer and this is based on what we see in the rumours and leaks, not a reforming budget. It’s trimming, and it might cut deeply in a couple of areas, but there isn’t really structural change. When you look at the problem in the Budget it’s that the last couple of Governments of both stripes, have put a lot people on Government payments who don’t really need them. A lot of that’s gone to families, but a lot of it’s also gone to top up the superannuation of the wealthy, a lot of it’s gone into payments for growing treatment of the worried well in health. There’s all kinds of money being paid to people who don’t really need it. Now, that’s what this Budget so far, from what we’ve seen doesn’t get to grips with.

GLOVER: But they are going to tackle family benefit parts A and B in different ways though, aren’t they? That’s certainly the rumour.

WILKINSON: Somewhat. And that’d be a good start if they do. But they’re still going to leave people with very large incomes and supers sitting on the pension. And the idea that really poor people are disabled people or people who haven’t had the chance to save because they’ve been carers for disabled children throughout their lives, have got to compete for a bucket of money that’s got a whole lot of wealthy people’s fists in it, seems like that’s the kind of work that needs to be done, and if Abbott wants to be considered brave, then he’s still got a long way to go.

GLOVER: Okay, wealthy people you have to define of course and some people say things that family tax benefits which goes to pretty ordinary families who are trying to make ends meet, that that’s a way of trying to reduce inequality in Australia. A lot of people are worried about the growing gap between the rich and the poor, giving some targeted money to families might be some way of helping that. 

WILKINSON: I reckon that those of us who live in Sydney have got a bit of a distorted idea about what doing it tough actually means. When the average income in Australia is really more like fifty grand than the hundred that we’re talking about in terms of the thresholds here, it’s not really a deep, deep cut. And when we’ve still got to find money for the NDIS, for all those people who really do need the help of their neighbours and friends and other tax payers, you’ve got to say, if the first thing you need to do is make sure the disabled are taken care of, then maybe PPL and maybe family payments and maybe a whole lot of other stuff have got to wait.

GLOVER: Rebecca, let me come to you. Because there’s really two competing ideas here, one that Australians care so much about sustainability over time, that they’ll cop any sort of pain if you can convince them it’s necessary for the good of the country and for the good of the economy. The other is the sense that they’re sick of politicians bloody lying to them all the time. Now you talk to average Australians in their homes, which is the sort of dominant feeling of the two?

REBECCA HUNTLEY: There’s definitely tension. I think what we’ve felt in our research up until this is some anxiety about what is really going to be cut and is the burden of this kind of idea of a contribute and build budget, which is what Joe Hockey is calling at, is going to evenly distributed. I think that the Government’s been reasonably clever in their politics of this, talking about you know, the big end of town will have to deal with it, people on high incomes, the issue around the petrol excise. But it really hinges on an ability to tell an interesting story and also to convince people that the debt is as much of a problem as the Government is saying. Now, I think that if they over emphasise that, and people really feel like, basic things like Medicare are being chipped away at, people will start to, you’ll see voters start to rebel. I think the interesting thing about Medicare co-payment, for as long as it’s been floated, there is quite a lot of anxiety in the population about that. That’s because Medicare is so strongly supported, not only as a public policy question, but also almost as a sense of nationalism. Australians think that Medicare is the thing that distinguishes us from other countries. Now, there is an acceptance that the Medicare system, the medical system in general is under a lot of pressure by the ageing society as well as by issues in relation to things like obesity related diseases and all the rest of it, so they might cop that co-payment if they think there’s a basic commitment of the Government to keep Medicare going, that this is about making sure the longevity of Medicare.

GLOVER: Rather than chipping away at Medicare.

HUNTLEY: Absolutely.

GLOVER: So, your advice to Joe, is sell it as saving Medicare, not chipping away?

HUNTLEY: Absolutely. It’s very important. If they think for a moment that this is the beginning of a series of reforms that will move us more into an American style kind of health care system, that will be a real problem.

GLOVER: Can I bring you in here, Tanya Plibersek? Let me play devil’s advocate for a second. Say, at six dollars with suitable safeguards in place for poor people, everyone can afford a couple of cups of coffee to go to the doctor, can’t they?

PLIBERSEK: Well, Richard, the reason that Australians love Medicare, is because they know that it delivers high quality health care for a reasonable price. Not just to individuals but to our national budget. Australians are already contributing to the cost of Medicare through their tax system and what you are in fact asking people to do is not pay six dollars to go to the doctor, you’re asking them to pay the thousands of dollars that they’ve paid through the tax system and then pay a co-contribution. What this will mean is the end of Medicare as we know it, because doctors will lose the incentive to bulk bill. When I was Health Minister, we got GP visits up to 82% of those GP visits were bulk-billed. As soon as you start charging co-payments, what will happen is doctors will start charging any fee they like, the fee that the AMA is suggesting is closer to seventy dollars or over a hundred dollars for a slightly longer consultation and then they’ll ask their patients to get some of that back from the Medicare office. So you’ve lost universality, you’ve lost the reasonable prices that we’re paying through the health system. And the trouble is, you look at the American system, which is what the Government’s taking us to, it actually ends up costing the Budget more as well. Individuals are paying more and it’s costing more, costing the nation more. The way to keep health costs down, this is the last thing I want to about this, the way to keep health costs down is to keep people healthy and out of hospital. Going to see your GP when you need to is part of that. Organisations like Medicare Locals that focus on preventative health, keeping people healthy and out of hospital is another part of that. The Government is doing everything they can to get rid of the things that keep us healthy, like the front of pack labelling that they knocked back, that gives people better information about the food they’re eating.

GLOVER: But if we’re so price sensitive that six dollars is really going to hurt then surely we’re price sensitive enough to make sure that doctors don’t then go to a full payment system.

PLIBERSEK: It hurts the poorest and the sickest people. The people who are sensitive to a six dollar co-payment, or a seven dollar or fifteen dollar as the Commission of Audit suggested, the ones who are most price sensitive are the sickest and poorest and they’re the ones who end up in hospital emergency, they’re the ones who will put off treatment until they are very, very sick. They’ll cost the health system more, and the cost to them as individuals, the cost in sickness and in misery is much greater.

GLOVER: Cassandra Wilkinson, do you agree with that?

WILKINSON: The thing about co-payments is that there’s a whole bunch of them in the system already. There’s co-payments on medication, if you want to see a specialist in any short amount of time, you’ve got to pay out of your own pocket as well and plus in a normal public hospital, the co-payment’s called a car parking price that you pay when you turn up. I think there’s a reason that over the years lots of Labor and Liberal people have said “look, this might not be the perfect way to do it” but there’s got to be some price signals in the health system. Because at the moment, Medicare over services the wealthy, it over services the cities, it’s not providing the service that it needs to to people who are in poorer suburbs and outside the big cities. There’s a whole lot of, and this is what I mean about, let’s not call someone brave if what they’re doing is whacking on a couple of payments without dealing with the major structural problems. Australians are paying twice as much in out of pocket health care costs as the British and the French. We’ve got add-on costs already, but they’re currently happening in a way that’s pretty ad hoc.

GLOVER: Okay, but that’s partly because of what Tanya said, generic medicines and not being tough enough on the suppliers, isn’t it?

WILKINSON: Well I’m absolutely for putting in generics in NSW there was a fight for years and years and one of the biggest problems is that clinical discretion stops you from brining cost down in generic medicine. It stops you from mandating cheaper kinds of things like artificial hips. You have all kinds of costs with the system which are completely indiscriminate and again the Government’s not doing the serious reform needed to bring down the price of healthcare in Australia.

GLOVER: Tanya, Cassandra makes a point about support on Labor ranks in the past. It’s true that Bob Hawke tried to bring in exactly the same thing. It’s hard for you to argue that it’s confronting Labor Party principles, isn’t it?

PLIBERSEK: Yeah, I think about three decades ago, or two decades ago we talked about a dollar or a two dollar co-payment and that was very quickly dispensed with for the very reason that it’s bad policy. People are paying for Medicare through the tax system. There isn’t evidence of over servicing, in fact where doctors are over servicing they are picked up pretty well by the systems that we have in place that see that some doctors are seeing too many patients in a day or too many patients in a week and those doctors are quite often disciplined in a variety of different ways where they’re doing it. I think the fact that you’ve got the head of the Business Council of Australia deciding that we’re seeing the doctor too often doesn’t give me any reassurance that these decisions are being made on the basis of what’s good for our health, not what’s good for the bottom dollar.

GLOVER: I guess his point is that we value something more if we pay something for it, even if it’s only a little bit, we might listen more assiduously to the advice, we might be a bit more cautious about going for no good reason.

PLIBERSEK: I just think the notion that there’s a whole lot of people out there who’ve got nothing better to do with their day than sit in a doctors surgery for an hour waiting to see the doctor, or put their names down to see the doctor in three weeks time because they’ve got nothing better to do, I just think it’s fanciful.

GLOVER: Those magazines are good!

HUNTLEY: I’d have to say Richard, you really want research to back up the idea that six or seven dollars would make people listen to the doctor, more than they would listen to them when they’re not- I think that’s an assumption that people make, I think that you would need to check that thoroughly in terms of research.

GLOVER: And unlikely, you’re implying…

HUNTLEY: Well I think it’s questionable.

GLOVER: Rebecca Huntley, Cassandra Wilkinson and Tanya Plibersek are here. Let’s talk about some of the other things briefly, the sale of the Royal Mint, that seems to be on, together with the sale, maybe, of defence housing etc. How do people feel about privatisation these days, Rebecca?  Do they see it as selling off the family silver or what?

HUNTLEY: Not so much, they’ve had years of privatisation of public assets by both sides of politics. But I think that what you do get from voters is a question about are we getting as good a possible deal from this as whatever organisation is going to buy it and I think that you’ve seen voters become more and more scrupulous and critical about that when they’ve seen some of the perhaps uneven deals in public-private partnerships. So, they do ask questions about privatisation, they don’t necessarily dismiss it. I think the interesting thing about the privatisation of Australia Post is, is it going to lead to more expensive, for example, cost of sending packages? Everybody is obsessed with online shopping, if you’ve noticed in your street the Australia post guy who runs from one house to another and so there’ll be questions about that. Is it going to put greater pressure on retail, on smaller business, on internet businesses that are domestic internet businesses?

GLOVER: And Cassandra we seem to be constantly talking about natural monopolies being privatised these days. Sydney Airport is one example, the port in Newcastle was privatised by the NSW government last week. Well, if you’re a coal miner in Newcastle, you don’t have a choice, these are not competitive things, you have got to put your coal through this particular coal port. Because they’re natural monopolies is it sensible to privatise them? Don’t you just end up with price gouging by the new owner?

WILKINSON: Well, two things, one the old saying that only thing worse than a public monopoly is a private monopoly is worth keeping in mind. I think Australia Post is a good example of a service where there’s heaps of competition, most of us don’t use snail mail anyway, and when we do send a package there’s half a dozen great and cheaper providers of packaging. Whereas say, the mint, is something where it’s hard to imagine who else is going to produce your banknotes, but I guess we’ll find out. The general way that governments deal with having a natural monopoly, say a port, is that you have an IPART or similar body does a regulated pricing, which means you wind up paying to regulate the asset that’s run by someone else and you wind up with some quite complex challenges in terms of incentivising the private owner properly to run it efficiently.

GLOVER: Well, look at the electricity system, which we’ve basically encouraged them to gold plate the system at an immense cost to all of us.

WILKINSON: Yeah, so what we should have had which was competitive pricing of electricity and cheaper prices for customers, because the government overregulated as well as partly privatising we wound up with the worse of both worlds, which was too high standards and customers paying too much for things they didn’t need. Which is why in the end these sales are not necessarily good or bad per se, it’s about the rules that are wrapped around them and fundamentally about what the government does with the money that it gets for them. If it take that money and builds new infrastructure that communities need, and that can generate increased economic activity, that’s great. If they spend it on filling recurrent payment holes then we’re all in a lot of trouble.

GLOVER: Does the government need to manufacture our coins, Tanya?

PLIBERSEK: I would have thought that selling off a licence to print money would be pretty popular.

GLOVER: Especially if you allow the new owner to choose the faces on the coins. So, you’d have the Clive Palmer two dollars.

PLIBERSEK: It would be like personalised number plates, but on our ten dollar notes. Look, Richard, I think the thing is that you have to decide on each of the potential privatisations on a case by case basis. There’s some that have been raised that would concern me a great deal. I am opposed to the sale of Medibank Private, I think Medibank Private has played a very important role in keeping competition in the private health insurance market. Snowy Hydro was another one that I think the environmental concerns that come along with something like that are very substantial. There are a range that are obviously poor policy, but there’s a lot of privatisations that have been proposed, we’ll have to look at the details as they come up.

GLOVER: What about the mint? What’s your feeling there? Because that does seem to be on the likely list.

PLIBERSEK: It just seems like an odd thing to do. I don’t understand, really, what the benefit of it could possibly be. It’s like Cassandra was saying, who’s going to provide competition to the mint? How do you keep prices low once you’ve sold it off? How do you guarantee that this is going to save taxpayers any money and not in fact cost them more in the future? I don’t know how you can answer any of those questions confidently.

GLOVER: Someone was saying, the school tours will be a lot more popular once they start giving out the free samples. That’s the main business model. We have on the Monday political forum Rebecca Huntley, a social researcher from IPSOS Mackay, Cassandra Wilkinson from the Centre for Independent Studies and the Deputy Leader of the Labor Party, Tanya Plibersek who also of course is Member for Sydney.

Five to six, just a quick one, no explanations even required if you could whisper one small thing into the ear of the Treasurer, save something from the cuts what would it be, Rebecca?

HUNTLEY: Anything to do with preventative health. So important for public policy, but also a priority for Australians.

GLOVER: And we’ll save money in the end?

HUNTLEY: Yeah. Anything to do with preventative health.

GLOVER: Cassandra?

WILKINSON: National Disability Insurance Scheme for sure, absolutely.

GLOVER: Long way coming, don’t delay it.

WILKINSON: Yes.

GLOVER: And Tanya?

PLIBERSEK: Well, I was going to say preventative health.

HUNTLEY: I can imagine Tanya whispering in Joe Hockey’s ear, it’s an odd thing!

GLOVER: No, she’s going to whisper ‘give up the cigars’!

PLIBERSEK: I was going to whisper, just don’t smoke. Look, health and NDIS are both excellent ones and I’d have to say one of the worst broken promises of this Government is the betrayal of Australian school kids with the broken promise on the Gonski education reforms. But it’s going, I’m sad to say, going to be very hard to narrow down our focus to just a few areas. It’s going to be a budget full of atrocities.

GLOVER: Let me just ask finally, and rather more lightly, Mr Hockey has been mocked for taking refuge in a cigar after completing the budget. When you want to reward yourself what do you tend to reach for, Tanya?

PLIBERSEK: Jane Austen.

GLOVER: So, you’d be photographed over the hedge with your Finance Minister both reading Austen?

PLIBERSEK: A well-thumbed copy.

GLOVER: A well-thumbed copy, Mr Darcy and all of that. Why don’t we go to Cassandra, what about you?

WILKINSON: That’s easy, I watch Dr Who with the kids.

GLOVER: Is that right? Totally relaxing.

WILKINSON: Totally relaxing. Takes you a thousand universes away.

GLOVER: A mental Tardis in which to slip with the good Doctor, and Rebecca Huntley?

HUNTLEY: Well, if I could watch Game of Thrones while getting a pedicure. But they only have girly movies at the salon, they don’t have Game of Thrones.

GLOVER: Do they have movies at the salon, do they?

HUNTLEY: Well, they sometimes do.

GLOVER: Is that right?

HUNTLEY: Usually some kind of terrible Sandra Bullock film, but I think they should show Game of Thrones.

GLOVER: So, that is a fresh horror I did not realise. I’ve seen of course the pedicure salons, I’ve walked past them, but I didn’t know there were people consuming Sandra Bullock movies at the same time.

HUNTLEY: It’s quite an extraordinary good business idea if this career I’m in doesn’t work out. Just basically the ability to have a Game of Thrones constantly playing whilst getting your pedicure.

PLIBERSEK: And if someone could be reading you Jane Austen at the same time.

HUNTLEY: There’s an Austen Room. There should be an Austen room at the back, an Austen waxing room.

GLOVER: Get your fingernails done with Austen and toes done with Game of Thrones. Brilliant business ideas every day. We’re out of time but thank you to Rebecca Huntley, Cassandra Wilkinson and Tanya Plibersek. Thank you very much.

ENDS

Add your reaction Share

Kidnapping of girls in Nigeria

coats-arms.jpg

The Hon Tanya Plibersek MP

Deputy Leader of the Opposition

Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs and International Development

  

Kidnapping of girls in Nigeria

6 MAY 2014

SYDNEY

The Labor Opposition is extremely concerned about the fate of more than 270 girls kidnapped in Nigeria.

It is reported that the kidnappers call the girls slaves and have threatened to sell girls as young as nine years old for marriage.

The situation is horrific.  It’s every parent’s worst nightmare.  Our thoughts are with the girls’ families and friends.

The President of Nigeria has called on the international community for help to rescue the girls.

The Abbott Government must do all it can to assist, including using our position on the UN Security Council to help drive an effective international response.  Labor offers every support possible.

 

Add your reaction Share

ABC AM with Chris Uhlmann

coats-arms.jpg

THE HON TANYA PLIBERSEK MP

DEPUTY LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

SHADOW MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
MEMBER FOR SYDNEY

E&OE TRANSCRIPT

RADIO INTERVIEW

ABC AM WITH CHRIS UHLMANN

MONDAY, 5 MAY 2014

 

Subjects: Indonesia, the Budget, ICAC

 

CHRIS UHLMANN: Tanya Plibersek is the Foreign Affairs Spokeswoman for the Opposition. She’s recently returned from Indonesia. Welcome to AM.

TANYA PLIBERSEK, DEPUTY LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION: Hello, Chris. How are you?

UHLMANN: Good, thanks. Tanya Plibersek, what do you make of Tony Abbott’s decision not to attend the Open Government Partnership in Bali?

PLIBERSEK: Look, I think it’s quite concerning. We understand that the President of Indonesia has issued a personal invitation to the Prime Minister and ironically it’s to attend an open government forum but we don’t know the reason the Prime Minister is not attending. It’s not credible to suggest that he is required in Australia for Budget preparation. The Budget would be basically at the printers now unless there’s a great deal more chaos than you’d normally expect around Budget time. So, I think it does put light to the claim that the Government make that the boat turn-backs policy is not affecting the relationship with Indonesia.

UHLMANN: You’ve just come back from Indonesia. How would you describe the relationship?

PLIBERSEK: Look, I think overall our relationship is a strong one, but it is absolutely off track at the moment and Labor wants to see it back on track. We still don’t have an Indonesian Ambassador here in Australia. It’s been more than a hundred days since the Australian Government said that they would sign a document with the Indonesians that would set out some terms around our relationship that would get it back on track. It means cooperation is suspended in a number of very critical areas, that’s not good for Australia’s long term relationship with Indonesia, it’s also not good for Australian businesses wanting to do business in Indonesia. It’s an important trading partner for us, it’s an important strategic partner for us, it’s growing and strengthening importance as Indonesian prosperity increases – we need the relationship back on track.

UHLMANN: So, how much responsibility do you take for the poor state of that relationship given that what really annoyed the Indonesian President was the bugging of his phone which took place on Labor’s watch in 2009?

PLIBERSEK: Well, when Vice President Boediono was here just a few months ago, he said to Bill Shorten and I that the relationship between Australia and Indonesia, until a few months ago, had never been better and he gave –

UHLMANN: Of course that wasn’t revealed until after you left government.

PLIBERSEK: Well, what I’m talking about is after we left government, the visit was when we were in Opposition and it was very clear then and it was very clear in the warm meetings that I had in Indonesia, including with the Foreign Minister, there’s a great deal of affection for Australia in Indonesia, that there’s a desire there to get the relationship back on track. I think it does require the Prime Minister to make a greater effort than he’s made up til now to see the relationship restored to what it was.

UHLMANN: People have been talking a lot about broken promises in the lead up to the Budget, but surely the most often repeated promise by the Coalition was to stop the boats, and that’s what it’s done.

PLIBERSEK: You know, there was a substantial decrease in the number of people making the dangerous journey to Australia by boat –

UHLMANN: But they hadn’t stopped.

PLIBERSEK: - after Labor worked with Indonesia to stop visa on arrival arrangements for Iranians transiting through Indonesia to Australia. There was a substantial drop after the arrangements were made with Nauru and Manus Island. And, Chris, if you’re really interested in asking the question about why those numbers didn’t drop earlier, it would be worth asking Scott Morrison when he’s contemplating sending asylum seekers to Cambodia, why the arrangement with Malaysia that Labor proposed, that would’ve allowed asylum seekers to work, that would’ve allowed their children to attend schools, that would’ve allowed people to receive medical attention in Malaysia, was unacceptable. Scott Morrison talks a lot about 1200 people who died trying to make the journey to Australia. 800 of those died after that Malaysian arrangement was proposed.

UHLMANN: Now, just on another issue. There was a report in The Australian this morning that the Government is poised for asset sales in the Budget. What’s your view on that?

PLIBERSEK: Well, I think that it’s extraordinary that a week out from the Budget, there seems to be so much uncertainty from the Government about what’s in and what’s out. We hear them ruling things out, the previous story was talking about the mining companies are able to get an assurance that there won’t be an increase to the cost of diesel fuel, but ordinary Australians aren’t able to get an assurance that their health costs won’t go up. I think there’s a great deal of concern that if Medibank Private, which is the one that’s being speculated about for example, is sold, that health care costs will go up. We know that Peter Dutton’s already ticked off on the highest private health insurance premiums increases in a decade, if Medibank Private is privatised, then there is less competition, the Government would have to show how this would improve health competition and prices for ordinary Australians. And my understanding is that it doesn’t hit the bottom line, what we lose is the income from Medibank Private. It’s just an ideological decision if it happens, it’s not an effort to improve the Budget.

UHLMANN: One last thing briefly, the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption shining a harsh light on political donations. Should they have limited it to individuals, not business groups or trade unions?

PLIBERSEK: Look, I think that the first thing that it’s important to ensure is that there is proper transparency and the reports today about this secretive organisation that is directing money to Joe Hockey’s campaign, I think shows that there’s people making a great deal of effort to get around the rules that already exist. So the first thing is to thoroughly and transparently apply the rules that already exist. And the second thing, Chris, that I think we really have to look at, for Federal campaigns, is looking at the amount that we’re spending on political campaigning. Whileever there’s an arms race, where parties are trying to outdo each other during a campaign, there will be pressure from parties to raise money. So, as well as properly applying existing rules, so that there is transparency and accountability, we should look at what we’re spending.

UHLMANN: Tanya Plibersek, we’ll have to leave it there. Thank you.

PLIBERSEK: Thank you.

ENDS

Add your reaction Share

Door Stop Interview on Australia's Relationship with Indonesia

coats-arms.jpg

THE HON TANYA PLIBERSEK MP

DEPUTY LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

SHADOW MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
MEMBER FOR SYDNEY

E&OE TRANSCRIPT

DOORSTOP INTERVIEW

SYDNEY

SATURDAY, 3 MAY 2014

 

SUBJECT/S: Australia’s relationship with Indonesia; Budget.

REPORTER: How embarrassing is this for the Government that they’ve had to cancel the visit to Bali?

TANYA PLIBERSEK, DEPUTY LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION: I'm very concerned that the Prime Minister at this very late stage has decided not to go to Indonesia. This was a personal invitation from the Indonesian President and it does look rather odd that at this late stage the Prime Minister has cancelled the trip.

REPORTER: You don’t believe that that it’s to do with budgetary issues?

PLIBERSEK: Well if they are still working on the Budget to the extent they need the Prime Minister here, this shows it's a government in chaos. The Budget is just weeks away and at this stage should virtually be at the printers. I mean it is an extraordinary claim, if it's true, that the Prime Minister, that the Budget is in such a bad state at the moment or such an early draft that the Prime Minister has to be here to hold the hand of the Treasurer to get it ready for Tuesday week.

I mean I've been around for the preparation of a Budget or two and I would amazed if they are at such early stage of the development of the Budget that the Prime Minister still needs to be here. I mean, phones do work in Indonesia. If there were a few late questions still to be tied down in the Budget, surely they could give him a call.

REPORTER: What kind of opportunity would this have presented, considering Indonesia is to have elections in July, and that President Yudoyono won’t any longer be the President anyway?

PLIBERSEK: I think we have said before that it's very important for Australia to get the relationship with Indonesia back on track. Indonesia is a very important neighbour to us. We've got a good friendship with Indonesia, it's an important economic and strategic partner. The sad fact is that for many months now, the relationship has been under pressure. We still have no Indonesian ambassador in Australia. There are a number of areas of co-operation between the Indonesian and Australian Government that are suspended at the moment. It is very important that we get the relationship back on track. I think in fact it would better to do it with Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, who has been a very good friend to Australia over the years. Any new President elected in these presidential elections will of course in the first instance focus on their domestic concerns. That happens whenever you have got a new Government. The danger is that after presidential election, we will see further delays to restoring state the relationship to the healthy state that it should be in.

REPORTER: Do you think that it was Tony Abbott's office that declined the invitation or do you think it perhaps came from the Indonesians, that they requested he not attend in light of the reports about boat being intercepted?

PLIBERSEK: Look, I can't begin to speculate on that. That is obviously a question for the Government. But if the case is that the Prime Minister's not visiting Indonesia because, as we've seen reported today, it may be that a boat has been intercepted and will be returned to Indonesian soil, it shows that what the Government has been saying about the relationship with Indonesia not being affected by boat turn backs is not true. This Government came to office - excuse me for a second - this Government came to office having made election commitments about what would happen in Indonesian waters and on Indonesian soil without ever having discussed that with the Indonesian Government. Then they claimed that those announcements that they have made had no effect on the relationship with Indonesia. If the reports are correct that the reason that the Prime Minister's not going is because an orange life raft might turn up on Indonesian soil while he's there and that that would embarrassing and difficult, it does show that the claims that the Government has made, that this is having no effect on relationship are simply not true.

REPORTER: The way things stand at the moment, it does show, though, their boat turn back policy is working. Is there any point that Labor would start to support that policy and is it just inevitable that a policy like that, the fact it's working, that there will be Indonesia some strained relations with Indonesia as a consequence?

PLIBERSEK: Sorry, it's the wind. Look, there are several factors that have reduced the number of people attempt to make the dangerous journey to Australia by sea. The first is getting rid of –

REPORTER: Sorry, Tanya.

PLIBERSEK: You tell me when you're ready.

REPORTER: Is there a point where Labor support it in the future and is it an inevitable part of the boat turn back policies are strained?

[Break in audio]

PLIBERSEK: There are several factors that have reduced the number of people coming to Australia by boat. The first is the end of the visa on arrival arrangement for Iranians in Indonesia. The second is of course the weather is particularly bad at this time of year. And of course the offshore processing arrangements of Nauru and Manus Island have also contributed to that.

[Break in audio]

The difference between those earlier things, the visa on arrival and the offshore processing, is that Labor introduced those in cooperation with our neighbours. We didn’t make unilateral announcements about what would happen in Indonesia, we did that in cooperation with Indonesia.

The other question of course for Scott Morrison is that when he says when he sees offshore processing on Nauru and on Manus Island has been successful how does he justify the fact that he opposed the arrangement with Malaysia? Scott Morrison talks a lot about the 1200 people who have died at sea and of course that is the thing that has always driven Labor’s policy, seeking an end to people risking their lives to come to Australia. But 800 of those people drowned after Scott Morrison rejected the arrangement with Malaysia that Labor had proposed.

REPORTER: I’ve just got one more that was texted through to me from Channel 10, are you able to comment on the talk about no dole before the age of 25?

PLIBERSEK: Can I just make one other comment about the trip to Indonesia. It’s ironic that the invitation to Indonesia was to a conference on open government but our Prime Minister won’t tell us why he’s rejected the invitation at this late stage. Indonesia is an important friend to Australia, the relationship is under stress at the moment. Labor has offered bipartisan support to the Government to get the relationship back on track and rejecting this invitation at this late stage really does put extra strain on the relationship. It’s very important that the Prime Minister discloses the reason that he’s really not going because Australians deserve to know why he’s putting further pressure on the relationship with such an important neighbour.

REPORTER: And do you have any comment on the reports that the budget will contain measures to curb the dole under the age of 25?

PLIBERSEK: We’ve seen a lot of budget speculation over recent days and all of it has been pretty nasty. Tony Abbott came to government saying that there’d be no cuts to health, no cuts to education, no change to the pension and no new taxes. He’s already broken every one of those promises. Now with the Commission of Audit we see that he’s got a lot worse in store for Australians. Today’s reports are of course saying that young people will be left to fend for themselves if they’re unfortunate enough to be unemployed and not studying. Of course we’re concerned, but it’s all in the piece of what we’ve seen in the Commission of Audit. The Commission of Audit’s saying $15 to go to the doctor, higher costs for medicines, it’s saying essentially the end of Medicare for ordinary Australians. More expensive private health insurance that you’ll be forced to take out. The Commission of Audit is also saying higher taxes including a state based income tax system, so you won’t just pay income tax to the federal government, you’ll pay income tax to the state government as well. And of course the Commission of Audit is saying cuts to minimum wages. If the Commission of Audit’s suggestions were accepted right now, a worker on minimum wage would be about $140 a week worse off than they are now. This is Commission of Audit is a blueprint for a budget of broken promises. Thanks everyone.

ENDS

Add your reaction Share

Cutting the Australia Network = A Broken Promise

coats-arms.jpg

THE HON TANYA PLIBERSEK MP

DEPUTY LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

SHADOW MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
MEMBER FOR SYDNEY

 

THE HON JASON CLARE MP

SHADOW MINISTER FOR COMMUNICATIONS
MEMBER FOR BLAXLAND

MEDIA RELEASE

CUTTING THE AUSTRALIA NETWORK = A BROKEN PROMISE

 

FRIDAY, 2 MAY 2014

If Tony Abbott accepts the advice of his Commission of Audit to cut funding from the Australia Network, he will be breaking an election promise.

A cut to the Australia Network is a cut to the ABC.

Before the election Tony Abbott promised hand on heart there would be no cuts to the ABC.

He said on SBS News the night before the election:

“No cuts to education, no cuts to health, no change to pensions, no change to the GST, and no cuts to the ABC or SBS.”

The ABC is funded to run the Australia Network. If Tony Abbott cuts it, he will have broken another promise to the Australian people.

The Australia Network is a vital public diplomacy tool that reaches up to 167 million households, giving Asia and the world an insight into Australian life and values.

Tony Abbott’s Commission of Audit has recommended that funding be cut from the Australia Network.

If Tony Abbott cuts the Australia Network he will have shown you can’t believe anything he says.

 

 

Add your reaction Share

Commission of Audit gives green light to Abbott Government’s $18 billion of overseas aid cuts

coats-arms.jpg

The Hon Tanya Plibersek MP

Deputy Leader of the Opposition

Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs and International Development

Commission of Audit gives green light to Abbott Government’s $18 billion of overseas aid cuts 

2 MAY 2014

SYDNEY

 

The Government’s razor-gang has given Mr Abbott the green light to cut more than $18 billion in aid from some of the poorest countries on earth.

All along Labor has said Mr Abbott deliberately designed the Commission of Audit to justify his deep cuts, and that’s exactly what’s happened.

On top of a massive overall funding cut, the Commission of Audit suggests reducing the number of countries that receive aid from Australia.  The Abbott Government must immediately explain which countries and programs will have their funding slashed.

Disturbingly, the Commission of Audit confirms, once and for all, that the Abbott Government has officially abandoned poverty reduction as the focus of the aid program.  If Australia’s aid program isn’t focused on things like education, health, water, or sanitation, it’s not an aid budget, it’s a trade budget.

In contrast, the former Labor Government nearly doubled the aid budget and introduced internationally recognised aid accountability and effectiveness measures.

 

Add your reaction Share

Today Show

coats-arms.jpg

THE HON TANYA PLIBERSEK MP

DEPUTY LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

SHADOW MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
MEMBER FOR SYDNEY

E&OE TRANSCRIPT

TELEVISION INTERVIEW

TODAY SHOW

FRIDAY, 2 MAY 2014

 

SUBJECT/S: Commission of Audit Report Release; The Abbott Government’s Twisted Priorities.

Lisa Wilkinson: We are joined now by Education Minister Christopher Pyne, and Deputy Opposition Leader Tanya Plibersek. Good morning to both of you. Christopher Pyne, I will start with you, the government has had access to these recommendations for some time now. How much influence have they had over the budget we will see in 11 days’ time?

Christopher Pyne: Well Lisa, I agree with the introduction to the segment that this is a report to the government, it's not a report of the government and therefore it is a shopping list if you like of all the various things that a government could do if it wanted to. Some of these things that the government will adopt, others it will reject. But the overall theme of course is that we have to get our spending under control. We have to start living within our means again, we have had years of rising deficits and ballooning debt and it isn't sustainable. And I think the Australian public know that. They know it's going to be a tough budget, and they are ready for that. And they changed the government last September because they wanted a group of people in charge of the budget who would make those tough decisions, who wouldn't keep living beyond our means. So it is going to be a difficult period for a little while but there is a light on the other side of the tunnel and that is if we can do the necessary things to get our spending under control we will be able to grow our economy again, provide the jobs that are necessary and set the country on a sustainable path into the future.

Wilkinson: You're right, the Australian people did vote you in in 2013, but it was on a promise from the Prime Minister that there would be no cuts to health, pensions or education. He did that many times on the show. Let’s have a listen.

FOOTAGE - Tony Abbott: The only party which is going to increase taxes after the election is the Labor Party. No country has ever taxed its way to prosperity. A) I'm not going to break election promises but if I change my mind I will go and seek a mandate for it.

Wilkinson: Christopher, these will have to be broken promises, won't they?

Pyne: Well, I think you will find in the budget that there won't be overall cuts to education and to health and to welfare but we will obviously reprioritize within our spending. The programs and projects that the Coalition thinks are more important. But obviously...

Wilkinson: The problem is the Prime Minister said no cuts.

Pyne: Well, there will certainly be cuts to some Labor programs.

Wilkinson: So, we are talking broken promises.

Pyne: No, because we always said overall spending on things like education in my portfolio, let's take education, the overall spending on education will continue to rise but there will be cuts within education to Labor’s program. You don't change the government and then simply keep the government's programs before and add your own. Obviously the public change the government because they knew that we would reprioritize spending, but spending will increase, it's just that we have to stop the rampant increases in spending that were occurring under Labor. Labor left us with $123 billion of accumulated deficits, and debt rising to $667 billion. But, of course, the government will need to keep spending money, governments always do, the question is whether we can afford the rampant increases of spending that Labor proposed and obviously we can't.

Wilkinson: Tanya Plibersek, your response?

Tanya Plibersek, DEPUTY LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION: Well Lisa, I think what you see with the Commission of Audit is the blue print for a budget of broken promises. You are quite right; the Prime Minister said no cuts to health, no cuts to education, no changes to the pension before the election. And now you have seen an array, a smorgasbord of cuts to those very things. You see an ordinary family on $100,000 a year set to lose $8,000 in family benefits. You see pensioners not only waiting longer for the pension, you see the pension growing more slowly and you see means testing of the pension to include the family home, $500,000 family home. Now, I don't know there are many homes particularly in those older suburbs in Sydney or Melbourne or Brisbane that wouldn't hit that $500,000 mark. You see as well further cuts to health. This is basically the end of Medicare for anyone on more than $88,000 a year. When it comes to education, Christopher is talking about how - he's trying to rewrite the promises he made. He said before the election that you could vote Labor or you could vote Liberal and your school would get the same funding. Now he's back-pedaling, he's running from that promise as quickly as he can. He's trying to implant a false memory in the psyche of the Australian people.

Wilkinson: The problem is we can't keep spending the way we have been spending, there have to be cuts.

Plibersek: Actually, I really have to take Christopher on this one as well. Since coming to government, this government has more than doubled the deficit. They have added $68 billion to the deficit. Now, if they are so concerned about runaway spending, why does the Prime Minister have a $5.5 billion paid parental leave scheme? $5.5 billion a year and he's saying that's a budget emergency? People just don't believe it. The government is trying to amp up or hype up the idea of a budget emergency to justify the cuts they’ve wanted to make. They have never believed in Medicare, they’ve never believed in decent funding for public schools, never believed in the aged pension. This is just a set of excuses to make the cuts they have always wanted to make.

Wilkinson: Christopher Pyne, last night on the 7:30 Report the Finance Minister Mathias Cormann all but confirmed that that deficit tax will go ahead. Is that now confirmed?

Pyne: Well, in the budget you will see everything that the government is going to do and I don't think that the Australian public are mugs, Lisa, in fact I’m absolutely certain they are not. And they know that the Coalition of course supports the aged pension, they know that we support Medicare. They know we are the best friend Medicare ever had because we want to make it a sustainable health system.

Plibersek: You are getting rid of it, Christopher.

Pyne: What rubbish, Tanya. That's just nonsense and the public know that’s nonsense. You can't say things that are palpably untrue and expect the public to believe them.

Plibersek: So, people on $88,000 a year will no longer have access to Medicare.

Pyne: Well, the Commission of Audit is a report to the government it is not a report of the government and the Australian public are not crazy. They elected a new government last September because they knew that the unsustainable budget position that Labor had given us wasn’t something Labor was ever going to address, they wanted a government of adults who were going to address it, and we will keep that commitment.

Plibersek: Why do you want to spend $5.5 billion on paid parental leave every year if there is a budget emergency, Christopher? Is that the most important spending there is, is it more important than the aged pension?

Pyne: Well Tanya, I didn't realise you were the hostess of the program asking all the questions but nevertheless -

Wilkinson: I'm very happy for two to have a conversation. Happy to deputise to both of you.

Pyne: Lisa, that's what I thought you got paid to do but anyway, the truth is that the paid parental leave scheme is a workplace entitlement, it’s not a welfare entitlement. Tanya being from the left of the Labor Party sees everything through the prism of welfare and government spending. We see the paid parental leave scheme being a workplace entitlement for women.

Plibersek: It is still $5.5 billion a year, Christopher. And only a fraction of that, Lisa, is raised by the levy on business. Taxpayers will be paying for it and pensioners will be paying for it with a cut in the aged pension.

Wilkinson: The Prime Minister did make it clear that this was his signature policy, and it would not be touched. Is that another broken promise?

Pyne: We took the paid parental leave scheme to two elections it was endorsed last September.

Wilkinson: So, why back down so easily on it?

Pyne: Well, we haven't backed down so easily as you say. What we are doing...

Wilkinson: The Prime Minister has said the capping will go from $150,000 down to $100,000.

Pyne: Well, what we are saying is that women need to have a generous paid parental leave scheme, they a fair dinkum one so they can participate in the work force, they want to have children because we need to boost our population, and because that's good for productivity in the Australian economy. But it also has to be affordable and sustainable and I think the program that’s being placed before the Australian people by the Prime Minister is a sustainable one that will be supported. But the most important thing is that Labor can't really try now wear the clothes of economic responsibility when they came to government in 2007 they had money in the bank, there was no deficit, there was no national government debt. Six years later there was $123 billion of deficits, and debt rising to $667 billion. And this government is setting about fixing the mess that Labor left us and I think the Australian public expect us to do that.

Plibersek: We left such a mess when we came into government Australia did not have three AAA credit ratings. When we left government, we did. We had three AAA credit ratings. The world judges us as having a miracle economy, having survived the GFC in the best shape of any advanced economy.

Pyne: You keep believing that, Tanya.

Wilkinson: We will have to leave that there. Thank you to both of you. 11 days to go, it's going to be very interesting 11 days of speculation for sure. Tanya Plibersek thanks very much and thanks to you, Christopher Pyne.

ENDS

Add your reaction Share

Abbott Government's ‘New Paradigm’ on Aid is Code for Cuts

coats-arms.jpg

THE HON TANYA PLIBERSEK MP

DEPUTY LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

SHADOW MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
MEMBER FOR SYDNEY

 

MEDIA RELEASE

ABBOTT GOVERNMENT'S ‘NEW PARADIGM’ ON AID IS CODE FOR CUTS

 

WEDNESDAY 30 APRIL 2014

The 'new paradigm' on overseas aid announced by the Abbott Government last night is just code for massive cuts.

These cuts will affect some of the poorest nations and people on earth.

So far, the Abbott Government's cuts to overseas aid total around $18 billion.

The announcement of a 'new paradigm' is clearly softening the ground for more.

The Abbott Government says one thing on aid, but does the opposite.

The Abbott Government said it would provide certainty on aid funding.  Instead, it's cutting it by $18 billion.

The Abbott Government said it would focus aid on our region.  Instead, it's cut $250 million in aid from the Asia-Pacific.

Abbott Government slogans like 'new paradigm' and 'economic diplomacy’ are designed to obscure the Government’s cuts to the aid program.

The Abbott Government's 'aid for trade' agenda must not come at the expense of support for education, health, water and sanitation, gender equality, infrastructure and governance.  The aid budget must not become a trade budget.

Australia’s aid and development program is in our national interest. It enhances our international influence, helps to prevent conflict and terrorism and builds our relationships of the future.

The Abbott Government's cuts to aid jumped from $4.5 billion to $18 billion after Mr Abbott abandoned the commitment to increase aid funding from 2017-18 that was detailed in his Government’s own Budget update.

In contrast, the former Labor Government nearly doubled the aid Budget and introduced internationally recognised aid accountability and effectiveness measures.

Add your reaction Share

Lateline with Tony Jones

coats-arms.jpg 

THE HON TANYA PLIBERSEK MP

DEPUTY LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

SHADOW MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
MEMBER FOR SYDNEY

 

E&OE TRANSCRIPT 

TELEVISION INTERVIEW 

LATELINE WITH TONY JONES

WEDNESDAY, 23 APRIL 2014

SUBJECT / S: Australia’s relationship with Indonesia.

TONY JONES: The Opposition is backing painstaking evidence to get relations with Indonesia back to full strength after tensions erupted over asylum boats and revelations of Australians spying on the President and his wife. That phone-tapping operation happened under the Labor government's watch. The Opposition's Foreign Affairs spokeswoman, Tanya Plibersek, is on her first visit to Jakarta and she joined me from there just a short time ago. Tanya Plibersek, thanks for joining us.

TANYA PLIBERSEK, OPPOSITION FOREIGN AFFAIRS SPOKESWOMAN: Hi, Tony.

JONES: Now Prime Minister Abbott has used the Navy to stop asylum boats without destroying or apparently severely damaging the relationship with Indonesia. Why couldn't Labor have done that?

PLIBERSEK: Well, I think it's fair to say that Australia's relationship with Indonesia over the long-term is a very good and sound one. It's a close friendship and it's got a lot to offer both Australia and Indonesia. But it's also certainly true to say that we've seen some significant friction in recent times and one of the reasons has been that the Abbott Government made announcements about what it would do on Indonesian soil and what it would do in Indonesian waters without discussing it with the Indonesian Government. Labor, in contrast, when we were in government, had a very significant change delivered by the Indonesian Government when they stopped offering visa-on-arrival to Iranians who were transiting through Indonesia on their way to Christmas Island. We did that in co-operation with Indonesia and I'd say that that's one of the most significant elements of the reduced flow of asylum seekers coming to Australia using people smugglers coming from Indonesia. The changes to visa-on-arrival has seen a very substantial drop in the number of Iranians, for example, coming to Indonesia.

JONES: But Foreign Minister Natalegawa seems to have moderated any previous criticisms that he's had. Yesterday he said the Australian Government's clamp-down has reduced the number of asylum seekers transiting through Indonesia and the risk of deaths at sea. Is he now coming to acknowledge the benefits of the Abbott Government policy?

PLIBERSEK: Well I think there's been a variety of different reports that have come out of the conference that you're referring to yesterday. What I would say is that I would be delighted to see the relationship back on track as quickly as possible. The fracture in the relationship between Australia and Indonesia has gone on way too long. I'd very much like to see an Indonesian ambassador back in Australia as quickly as possible, I'd like to see the steps that have been agreed by the Indonesia and Australian governments pursued and settled as quickly as possible because our relationship is an important one for both of us. Indonesia's an important strategic and economic partner for Australia, just as Australia is an important strategic and economic partner for Indonesia. And we have a really good history between us. It's important to get the relationship back on to a much more normal footing as quickly as we can.

JONES: But in terms of friction, do you accept that in fact much more damage was done to the Indonesian relationship by spying, the spying operation that tapped the phones of President Yudhoyono, his wife and others in his circle, presumably with the knowledge of the then Australian Government, your government?

PLIBERSEK: Well Tony, I've said to you before that we don't discuss operational intelligence issues, but I think it's fair to say that the handling of those allegations that were made was less - less than it should have been. When you have misunderstandings between countries or periods of tension, the most important thing to do is rely on your people-to-people relationships. Pick up the phone, talk these things through, not let them fester. And what we've seen now is the relationship off track for a substantial amount of time. There's an agreed process for getting the relationship back on track. I'd really like to see that brought to a conclusion. We're running into a period now of presidential elections in Indonesia and I think it would be very important to get the relationship back on track before a new president is elected because any new president, whoever it might be, of course will be focused in the first instance on their domestic issues. So, really, the sooner the better.

JONES: Well once again the Indonesian Foreign Minister is saying quite clearly there is a process for a return to full diplomatic relations. He's saying that is contingent on both sides agreeing to this code of conduct which will govern future spying operations. Now, this has been going on for some time. What are the sticking points? Has he told you?

PLIBERSEK: Well, Tony, I don't know, I'm not the Foreign Minister. You'd have to ask the Australian Foreign Minister to give you a report on what the sticking points are from the Australian end. What I can tell you is that -

JONES: No, I'm talking about from the - sorry, I'm talking about what Dr Natalegawa, the Indonesian Foreign Minister has said and what are the sticking points from his end?

PLIBERSEK: No, Tony, we didn't discuss these issues and I certainly wouldn't tell you if we had because we had a terrific meeting about a wide range of issues, but we weren't focused on this. Australia and Indonesia have a lot in common. We've got a lot of -

JONES: I'm sorry, I'm just going to - sorry, I have to interrupt you there because the Indonesian Foreign Minister himself said yesterday publicly that the agreement must include a commitment to refrain from employment of intelligence resources in a manner that would be inimical or damaging to the other country. Now this seems to be the missing clause. He's saying if this clause is inserted in the document, he'll sign it and we can get the agreement back on track. Did he not talk to you about this?

PLIBERSEK: No, we didn't discuss that, Tony. You've got his quote. I mean, you can make of that what you will. You don't need me to talk about my discussions with him to interpret that. This - in fact the relationship between Australia and Indonesia was part of our conversation. We both expressed our hope that it would get back on track quickly, but that - acknowledging that we've got a long and strong and close history together as nations, that the - that recent friction that we've had we certainly hope as a Labor opposition is resolved as quickly as possible. And I said that to him. But we discussed a range of things. We discussed South China Sea, Crimea, Ukraine. It was a very good and wide-ranging discussion.

JONES: Well I'll just make the point that the code of conduct and the completion of this code of conduct agreement seems to be the key sticking point and this seems to be the line that he wants in it and I'm just wondering if he conveyed this message to you in any way?

PLIBERSEK: Well no, Tony, and I mean, I think it's a little unreasonable for you to be asking me about the negotiations between two other Foreign ministers. You really need to talk to Australia's Foreign Minister or Indonesia's Foreign Minister about their discussions with one another. It's not for me to be commenting on their discussions with one another.

JONES: Tanya Plibersek, we'll have to leave you there. Thank you very much for joining us.

PLIBERSEK: Thanks, Tony.

ENDS

Add your reaction Share

Australia Network China Deal Puts Pressure On Tony Abbott To Keep His Promise

coats-arms.jpg

THE HON TANYA PLIBERSEK MP

DEPUTY LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

SHADOW MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
MEMBER FOR SYDNEY

 

THE HON JASON CLARE MP

SHADOW MINISTER FOR COMMUNICATIONS
MEMBER FOR BLAXLAND

MEDIA RELEASE

AUSTRALIA NETWORK CHINA DEAL PUTS PRESSURE ON TONY ABBOTT TO KEEP HIS PROMISE

 

TUESDAY, 22 APRIL 2014

The deal announced last week between the Australia Network and Shanghai Media Group will give the Australia Network the most extensive access to Chinese audiences by any Western broadcaster.

The contract puts further pressure on the Abbott Government not to break another election promise by cutting the Australia Network.

The Australia Network is a vital public diplomacy tool that reaches up to 167 million households, giving Asia and the world an insight into Australian life and values.

Other countries are investing heavily in their international broadcast operations.  So if Tony Abbott cuts the network he will be putting Australia at a diplomatic disadvantage.

The Abbott Government has been softening the ground for weeks to scrap the network and break its promise not to cut funding to the ABC.

Before the election Tony Abbott promised hand on heart there would be no cuts to the ABC.

He said on SBS News the night before the election:

“No cuts to education, no cuts to health, no change to pensions, no change to the GST, and no cuts to the ABC or SBS.”

The ABC is funded to run the Australia Network. If Tony Abbott cuts it, he will have broken another promise to the Australian people.

Add your reaction Share