TRANSCRIPT - Doorstop Interview, Parliament House, Thursday 23 October 2014

coats arms










Subject/s: Attack on Canada’s Parliament, Ebola, RET.

TANYA PLIBERSEK, DEPUTY OPPOSITION LEADER: This morning all Australians are thinking of our friends in Canada, the extraordinary attack on their Parliament Houses - our thoughts are with the Canadians.  We share much with Canada. Our democracy, our institutions, some of our history - we fought together in wars passed, we have a great deal of friendship and affection for the Canadians and our thoughts are with them today.

I also wanted to say a little bit about Ebola today. We have heard from Senate estimates in the last 24 hours essentially three different stories about Australia's preparedness to fight Ebola. And we have heard one story from the Chief Medical Officer, a completely different story from the head of the health department and a different story again from our defence force personnel. We need a government that is prepared to take charge of protecting Australians from Ebola, and as we have said in the past, the best way to protect Australians from Ebola is to ensure that it is stopped at its source in West Africa. There are reports that President Obama spoke with Prime Minister Abbott about Australia making a greater contribution to the international effort to fight Ebola. So we have now heard pleas from President Obama, from Prime Minister Cameron, from the World Health Organisation from the Secretary General of the United Nations, from the UN Security Council with a motion that Australia signed up to, organisations like Oxfam, Medecins Sans Frontieres, Red Cross, all of them doing their very best to help stop Ebola in West Africa, to get this terrible virus under control and asking the Australian Government - urging more international effort - for Australia to be a part of the international effort to get this virus under control. And the Australian Government still unwilling to act. There is chaos at home it is clear now with Scott Morrison saying that he should be in charge. Well, someone should be in charge of the domestic response. We heard that the Health Minister participated for the first time just last Friday in a weekly crisis meeting that Chief Medical Officers and health officers around the states and territories have been participating in since August to ensure Australian preparedness. It’s taken our Health Minister until October to participate in our weekly meeting. And we hear that a crisis team is ready to fly, isn’t ready to fly, is trained, isn’t trained, is waiting in Darwin, is prepared, isn’t prepared, it’s simply not acceptable.

JOURNALIST: In light of the attack on the Canada’s Parliament, how safe do you feel coming into work today?

PLIBERSEK: I feel perfectly safe.

JOURNALIST: Is the Government doing enough, I mean do you feel perhaps that security has backed off in the last couple of days?

PLIBERSEK: I am sorry, are you talking about Parliament here?

JOURNALIST: Yes, sorry.

PLIBERSEK: I feel perfectly safe here.

JOURNALIST: Do you believe that more needs to be done to protect MPs here and workers?

PLIBERSEK: I think our security is excellent here, but I would say this  there were very brave people in the Parliament buildings in Ottawa today and it makes me appreciative again and again for the excellent, dedicated staff at the Parliament.

JOURNALIST: Could there be a role here for mandatory quarantine to counter any Ebola threat?

PLIBERSEK: The very best way of getting a handle on this virus is to stop its spread. The number of infected cases is doubling on average every 20 days. If we do not get the virus under control, 1.4 million people are estimated to have it by January next year. It is impossible when you have got those large numbers of people infected to protect Australia effectively. The best and most effective protection for Australia right now is to be part of an international effort to stop the spread of the virus. If this virus gets to Asia, the World Health Organisation has described that as potentially catastrophic. We live in a densely populated region of the world. We live in a region where some countries have excellent health systems, like Australia does, and some countries have very poor health systems. So the best protection for Australia is to fight Ebola in West Africa.

JOURNALIST: Would you like to see an investigation into the alleged [inaudible]

PLIBERSEK: Unfortunately I do not have further details of that so I will not comment.

JOURNALIST: Just from Senate Estimates yesterday, we heard from the Chief Medical Officer who obviously expressed concerns about Australia’s preparedness if an Ebola case were to happen here, but then we heard on Monday from the Health Secretary, Martin Bowles, who said that there were a team of around 20 specialists,  who’s right?

PLIBERSEK: Well this is the point, we have got a Government that is telling Australians that we are prepared and yet government officials have given three different stories about Australia's preparedness. You have to ask the Government who is right. But the problem is the Government should be all over this. The Health Minister, Peter Dutton, should have been attending those weekly meetings of health officials and he should be able to confidently answer this question. There shouldn’t be three stories, there should be one story, and the Health Minister should be confidently able to explain to Australians what measures are in place to fight Ebola in Australia and in our region and more particularly, what effort Australia is making to stop Ebola in West Africa, at the source.

JOURNALIST: Are you comfortable with Labor's negotiating position on the RET?

PLIBERSEK: Well, I certainly think that the Government is not negotiating in good faith. They have come to the table with a 40 percent cut, something that represents a 40 percent cut in our renewable energy target. I think that it is important that Labor is open to working with the Government if they have got a fair proposal. But I would like to see a fair dinkum proposal to start with.

JOURNALIST: What does the Government's offer mean for green jobs?

PLIBERSEK: Well, this Government has presided over the greatest uncertainty in the renewable energy sector that we have seen for some time. We have gone from being a preferred destination for a renewable energy investment to falling way down the list. Thank you.


Add your reaction Share

TRANSCRIPT - Capital Hill, Thursday 23 October 2014

coats arms










Subject/s: Ebola

JULIE DOYLE, PRESENTER: We've heard evidence from the Department of Foreign Affairs at Senate Estimates today that there's now been requests from the United Kingdom and the United States for Australian people to be sent to West Africa to help fight Ebola. If they're asking for us to send people, should they be agreeing then to evacuate Australians if they do become infected?

PLIBERSEK: Well both the US and the UK are making a decision to treat their own medical staff in-country. That means wherever possible they'll treat people as quickly as possible on the ground in Liberia or Sierra Leone where they are building hospitals with first world health standards. The UK's also said that they are potentially sending a hospital ship. They're making a different decision about their own health staff in the first instance to treat in-country. But of course, the proposition remains that Australia should be able to get an agreement with the United States, with the UK or one of our European allies to provide health facilities on the same basis, or health treatment on the same basis, to our personnel as they would to their own.

DOYLE: Does it surprise you that we've had confirmation - that we have had these official requests from the United Kingdom, United States amongst others, but this agreement as far as the evacuation of Australian personnel hasn't been sorted out?

PLIBERSEK: Well I think it’s very significant that we've had the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the President of the United States make formal requests of our government for extra Australian commitment to fight Ebola in West Africa and those requests haven't been met. These are two of our most important allies. They are bearing a huge share of the responsibility of fighting Ebola in West Africa. We've now got a situation where the President of the United States is ringing the Prime Minister of Australia. The Prime Minister of the UK has spoken to our Foreign Minister, and still the Australian Government is not making arrangements to support Australian personnel who are trained, who are willing, who are able to fight Ebola in West Africa to go.

DOYLE: But don’t they need some way if requests are coming and they want people to go there, isn't it fair enough that the Australian Government says there must be a way to evacuate or treat Australian people if they get infected?

PLIBERSEK: Well, of course it's fair enough to say that there must be a way of treating Australians. What's in question is what effort has the Australian Government made to put those arrangements in place? And the Prime Minister says that it's impossible, it’s just too hard. For weeks now we've had the Health Minister saying it's just too hard and we find out that, in fact, the Health Minister’s only for the first time on Friday joined the weekly meeting of chief health and medical officers to manage the Ebola crisis. So we've got a chaotic 24 hours in Senate Estimates where there's three different stories about Australia's preparedness in Australia and in our region and we have further evidence now saying that Australia has been requested by the United States, by the United Kingdom, joining requests from the United Nations, the UN Security Council, the International Crisis Group, Medecins Sans Frontieres, the World Health Organisation, our own AMA, Public Health Association - all of these organisations saying that it is important to have personnel on the ground in West Africa, people who are trained and willing and able to go. We're knocking back the requests of all of these health and security organisations. Now we're also saying no to some of our most important allies.

DOYLE: Looking at some of the measures closer to home to deal with any kind of outbreak in the Asia Pacific region or with people coming back here from West Africa, now there's been reports about some tension in the Cabinet when it comes to the role of the Immigration Minister Scott Morrison. Now as far as quarantine measures at the airport for example, for people coming back from West Africa, wouldn't it make sense, doesn't that require Customs and Immigration to have a greater role there?

PLIBERSEK: Well, it absolutely requires that Customs and Immigration are aware of what they should be telling passengers who are coming back into Australia. It's very important that they have very clear instructions, that they obviously tell passengers that if they have any of these symptoms that they should go to a hospital and so on. I think the problem here is after 24 hours of chaotic answers in Senate Estimates we now have Scott Morrison making a bid to expand his portfolio responsibilities further. To be honest, it doesn't matter to me so much who is in charge within the Government, there needs to be someone in charge.

DOYLE: Wouldn't it make sense then to bring all this under one umbrella?

PLIBERSEK: Well, I think that's a matter for the Government.

DOYLE: Alright, Tanya Plibersek, we'll leave it there. Thank you very much.

PLIBERSEK: Thank you.


Add your reaction Share

MEDIA RELEASE - Ebola Crisis

coats arms















The foreign affairs department has revealed the UK and US Governments made specific requests for Australia to send personnel to help fight the Ebola crisis in West Africa, weeks ago.


In Senate Estimates today, the foreign affairs department’s Ebola response chief admitted that back in September the UK Government sent a specific request to the Foreign Minister, Julie Bishop, for Australian personnel to be sent to West Africa.


Foreign affairs’ officials confirmed this request was consistent with the views of UK Prime Minister, David Cameron.


The foreign affairs department also revealed that the US Government has requested Australia send personnel to West Africa.  That request was made formally through the Australian embassy in Washington DC, again in September.


In a further extraordinary admission, the head of the foreign affairs department said he had no information about a phone call between Prime Minister Abbott and US President Barack Obama where they discussed Australia making additional commitments to the Ebola crisis response effort.  That’s despite details of the call being released publicly by the White House.


The Abbott Government must immediately explain why it hasn’t acted on these very specific requests from the US and the UK - two of our closest friends.


Today’s revelations follow 24 hours of wildly different accounts of the Abbott Government’s preparedness to respond to the Ebola crisis in West Africa from the Chief Medical Officer, the head of the health department, the Defence Force, and the immigration minister.


The Abbott Government’s uninterested, chaotic response to this serious health crisis is just not good enough.







WONG: Now UK, I think in answer to a question from Senator Rhiannon you indicated there had been a request from the United Kingdom, is that right?




WONG: Just remind me, I apologise, I can’t recall this, it might have been reported but –


EXELL: So I mentioned earlier that the request covered personnel into the broader Sierra Leone Ebola response and for funding to again to support the response in Sierra Leone.


WONG: And how as that request received?


EXELL: I, from memory, I think Senator that was a letter to the foreign minister.


WONG: When was that received?


EXELL: The end of September.


WONG: From her counterpart?


EXELL: Actually I think it came from the High Commissioner , UK’s High Commissioner to Australia.


WONG: Australia’s High Commissioner? Sorry, the UK –


EXELL: High Commissioner –


WONG: Here in Australia?


EXELL: Correct.


WONG: Did that, given that was to the foreign minister tell me what happened as a result of that. Was there a meeting between the foreign minister and the High Commissioner or between DFAT and the High Commissioner or?


EXELL: Yeah, there’s been a number of meetings then between DFAT and the High Commissioner, I think he then went overseas so it’s actually been the acting High Commissioner. So we’ve been in touch with that office here in Canberra and indeed there’s been conversations that have been occurring in the UK as well.


WONG: In relation to this request, right. And has this request also been the subject of cabinet consideration?


EXELL: In the same way that I think the secretary referred to before as being part of the consideration, yep.


WONG: Okay. 




David Cameron’s views consistent with the request from the UK High Commission in Australia


WONG: And Mr Cameron maintained the British Government’s position in relation to the request or has the request been altered in some way?


EXELL: To my knowledge it hasn’t been altered.


PETER VARGESE, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND TRADE: My understanding is the UK is still interested in Australian assistance along those lines….




Later – the US request


WONG: Finally the US, what is the US request?

EXELL: So there was an initial request for a liaison officer and then more recently the request from the US has expanded again to request personnel to support their efforts in Liberia and request has been for further contributions in to the UN system for financial resources.


WONG: What’s the nature of the request in relation to support, personnel to support US efforts in Liberia?


EXELL: It hasn’t been more specific than that Senator; it’s been personnel to support their efforts in Liberia.


WONG: And how was that communicated?

EXELL: I think that’s been through meetings with our Embassy in the US.


JOHN FAULKNER: Does it go to the number of personnel?


EXELL: Hasn’t gone to that detail Senator.


WONG: Can we just get some timeframes around this, so you said more recently, there was, there was the initial request for liaison officer then and more recently personnel to support their efforts in Liberia. Can you give me the approximate date of the second?


EXELL: Again the initial request was in the end towards the end of September.


WONG: Yep.




Later – about the status of this request


WONG: What’s happened with that request?






On the head of the foreign affairs department and Tony Abbott’s call with President Obama


WONG: I appreciate that you’ve said you haven’t seen a record of this conversation but have you been orally briefed? Or have the Foreign Minister or her office, to your knowledge, been briefed?


VARGESE: I don’t know.



Add your reaction Share

SPEECH - Death of the Hon. Edward Gough Whitlam AC QC - Motion of Condolence

coats arms











Thank you Madam Speaker.

I’d like to pay my respects to the family of Gough and Margaret Whitlam and I start by acknowledging, Catherine, Nicholas, Tony, Stephen, their partners and their families.  The wonderful support and love they have shown their parents for many years.  And of course Gough’s dear friends who will miss him so greatly. 

I have often thought it fitting that Gough Whitlam was Australia’s 21st Prime Minister.

Because with Gough as Prime Minister, Australia came of age.

An Australia that once thought small was asked to think big.

An Australia, once closed and inward-looking, opened to the world.

Gough rejected those old ideas of what Australia should be and led us to what Australia could be.

The Australia that Gough Whitlam was born to in 1916, almost a century ago, was a very different place.

We were at war in support of mother England.

Australian women had only relatively recently secured the right to vote.

And Indigenous Australians were shamefully excluded from our national life and even from our national census.

Gough’s life, nearly a century long, charted the evolution of our nation from one of insularity and dependence, to one of openness and confidence.

Gough only had three short years in Government.

But they were I think, arguably, the most transformative three years in Australian political history.

Free university education - my family, my brothers and I, and I think many people on Labor’s side, and no doubt many on the other side too, were the first in their families able to afford a university education.

You could get a university education based on your intellect, your hard work, your desire to go to university, rather than your parents income.

Universal healthcare.  Medibank, now Medicare.

Rights for women, support for sole parents, homeless Australians, and for “new Australians” as they were then called. He made room for us all in our nation.

Who can forget that image of Gough Whitlam pouring the sand into Vincent Lingiari’s hand?

…starting a process of giving land rights to Indigenous Australians who had waited so long and worked so hard to achieve that gain.

Gough’s commitment to equality for women, was best embodied in the wonderful relationship he had with his beloved wife, Margaret.

A relationship which spanned nearly 70 years of marriage.

Yes, Gough’s reforms for women were landmark.

They included the election of the first Labor woman to the house of representatives, Joan Child in 1974.

His partnership with Margaret was such a driving force of that drive for equality for women.  Gough respected her, he listened to her views, he treated her as an equal in every way.

When she died, a few months short of 70 years of marriage he said: ”We were married for almost 70 years…she was a remarkable person and the love of my life.”

On hearing of Gough’s passing today, many people have described Gough as a giant of our nation.

And he was.

He was a towering figure.

He had the ability to deliver soaring rhetoric, but his actions were down to earth.

He was a very warm person on a one to one basis.

I remember when my parents first met him they were almost embarrassed to talk to him because they admired him so much - he was so incredibly warm and welcoming to them, particularly to my mother.

His ability to talk at an international level about issues of enormous complexity and convince an audience on the one hand, and on the other speak person to person to any Australian and make them feel respected and included.  A phenomenal ability.

From helping to sewer Western Sydney, to his reforms to health and education.

It was that ability to merge the idealistic and the pragmatic that made him such a great leader.

He delivered so many great reforms that mattered so much to the everyday lives of Australians.

His work in the suburbs of Sydney, not just the sewers but the work that he and Margaret did together building libraries and swimming pools.

Those things mattered to Gough as well.

They mattered to the people he represented, and they mattered to him.

They were the great motivator for him, the thing that made him work so hard as a member of Parliament.

But as well as that phenomenal drive to improve the lives of Australians, at that suburban level, in Western Sydney in particular, he also saw himself, and saw Australians, as citizens of the world.

He turned Australia into an outward looking nation.

He ended conscription, he brought our last troops home from Vietnam.

He delivered independence for Papua New Guinea.

He said at the time:

“By an extraordinary twist of history, Australia, herself once a colony, became one of the world's last colonial powers. By this legislation, we not only divest ourselves of the last significant colony in the world, but we divest ourselves of our own colonial heritage. It should never be forgotten that in making our own former colony independent, we as Australians enhance our own independence. Australia was never truly free until Papua New Guinea became truly free”. 

Most enduringly perhaps, Gough helped us find our place in Asia.

He visited China of course, as Opposition leader – leading the world.

And as Prime Minister he established diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China – where to this day he is still remembered with great affection.

Gough united with Malcolm Fraser to campaign for a republic, part of his long term push to cement Australia’s independence.   As Prime Minister he changed the national anthem from God Save the Queen to Advance Australia Fair, and he dispensed with the British honours system.

He was a fine ambassador to UNESCO and he was part of our successful bid for the Sydney Olympics - both he and Margaret were.

Malcolm Fraser said about him “he wanted Australia to be an independent player on the world stage. He didn’t want Australia to be the subject of any other nation.”  His whole career expressed that.

Gough’s legacy both domestically and on the world stage is now so deeply ingrained in our national character that we sometimes take it for granted.  We forget, perhaps, how fierce the battles were.

All of our Prime Ministers have served our nation with great loyalty and distinction.

But, there will always be something special about Gough.

He had an ego, that’s true.  And he was the first to make fun of himself for that.

He said in the early 2000s: “I feel I am eternal but not immortal."

As always, as he would say, he was right about that.

His contribution to Australia has changed us, fundamentally and permanently. But you know, the great man, still came to branch members’ Christmas parties, he still did Labor Party fundraisers for me and for many of my colleagues.

And he would turn up without fanfare. There was one year we had our Christmas party upstairs at a pub and he needed assistance up the stairs.  I said to him “Gough, if you’d told us you were coming, we would have had the party anywhere just to make it a little bit easier for you to attend”.

He waved away that consideration and said “comrade, I’m just a humble branch member now”.

He also, I think, had Margaret to keep him in check. I remember one of these fundraisers where he was speaking and he got onto a favourite topic of his - the single gauge railway.  It ended with Margaret banging her stick on the ground saying “enough now, Gough, they’ve heard enough, sit down!”

They loved each other very deeply and each of them made an enormous commitment to the service of our nation.

They will be deeply missed by their friends, by their family, and by our colleague, John Faulkner, who had a very special friendship with Gough Whitlam.

The outpouring of grief that we are witnessing today is not just mourning for a man, but for everything he represented.

He had a clear vision of the country that he knew Australia could be, and he had the ability to project that vision to the world.

More than anything else, Gough’s memory should inspire us to have courage in politics.

           …a reminder that often the most important reforms are the hardest.

But as we’ve seen today from the unprecedented public response to his passing, it is those reforms that Australians cherish, and it is those reforms that will outlast us all.

Gough, my friend and comrade, rest in peace.


Add your reaction Share

TRANSCRIPT - AM Agenda, Tuesday 21 October 2014

coats arms










Subject/s: Gough Whitlam.

KIERAN GILBERT, PRESENTER: I thank you Tanya Plibersek for honouring your commitment to come in this morning on a sad day for the Labor Party.

TANYA PLIBERSEK, DEPUTY OPPOSITION LEADER: Thank you Kieran, it certainly is a sad day for the Labor Party. Gough Whitlam was a giant, a Labor Giant, and we feel for his family and of course it is a great loss to the nation also.

GILBERT: Indeed the Prime Minister this morning issued a statement, I’ll just read a little bit to you. He describes Gough Whitlam as a giant of his time, uniting the Australian Labor Party, winning two elections, establishing diplomatic relations with China, the first Australian Prime Minister to visit China, an enduring legacy the Prime Minister describes that as. Also this which is something Matt Thistlethwaite referred to earlier and that I guess is one of those seminal images of the Whitlam era the Prime Minister said that Gough Whitlam recognised the journey our country needed to take with Indigenous Australians the image of soil passing from Gough Whitlam’s hand to that of Vincent Lingiari’s a reminder that all Australians share the same land and the same hopes.

PLIBERSEK: And I think one of the most phenomenal aspects of Gough Whitlam’s time as Prime Minister is that he did things that were so controversial at the time that have become absolutely embedded in our Australian history and character. That image of passing the soil into Vincent Ligiari’s hand starting a process of giving land rights to Indigenous Australians who had waited so long and worked so hard. Introducing Medibank that’s become Medicare, an absolutely fundamental part of our nation’s character now, accessible healthcare for all Australians. Making university education free so that people like my older brother, first in our family ever to go to university, but the experience of so many Australians, that idea that access to university should be based on your intellect and your ability to work hard and not whether your parents are wealthy. These are things that have become part of our national character. The Prime Minister has very generously talked about the establishing of diplomatic relations with China when Gough Whitlam said that he would do that as Opposition Leader, very controversial thing to do, and yet it has been so critical to Australia’s economic and security success in decades following that. And so I think that the lesson I suppose is that those brave policy decisions that have set Australia on a better course should inspire us to bravery today as well. To make those tough decisions, to stand up and argue for the things we believe in, things that we know can make our nation stronger and stronger.

GILBERT: On the foreign policy front that you referred to there he visited in 1971, China, before Kissinger, before Nixon, so not just leading the country in that sense but leading the world as well.

PLIBERSEK: Absolutely and I think now that seems like an uncontroversial thing to do. Most Australians now would acknowledge that our relationship with China is important for us economically and strategically, certainly that we have nothing to fear from China. At that time you’ve got to understand how controversial it was, to be opening up relations with a communist nation. The other great foreign policy achievement is of course returning our troops from Vietnam, bringing back the last of our troops from Vietnam. Again now looking back it seems like the only obvious thing to do and yet at the time incredibly controversial, a very brave move.

GILBERT: A very modern figure, wasn’t he, in the Lodge along with his wife Margaret they were powerful, national leaders and figures weren’t they?

PLIBERSEK: They were great modernisers, making sure that no fault divorce, social security payments for sole parents, reducing the voting age from 21 to 18. These were all big steps on making Australia a more modern nation. But it was something more than that it was actually the relationship between Gough and Margaret, the influence that Margaret obviously had. The fact that she was prepared to speak her mind and the fact that she said she made a decision when she became the wife of the Prime Minister that she could sit quietly in her gilded cage and say nothing or she could use this position to do some good. And she used it to do some good. She speaks very eloquently in a biography that is written about her about the empathy and connectedness that she felt with those women that lived in the western Sydney seat that Gough represented, the work that she did in establishing libraries and swimming pools and arguing for those services in the suburbs of Sydney. But more than that the type of woman she was, she was so utterly herself. Full of intelligence and integrity and with this beautiful close loving relationship with her husband there was a real model of an equal relationship.

GILBERT: Indeed it was and I guess as we reflect on this contribution from Gough Whitlam dying at 98 a rich life, a long life we have to look at their legacy in terms of their impact on the modern Labor Party. Many Labor, senior Labor figures over the last few decades were inspired to enter politics because of his contribution and not a long prime ministership in you know historical standards I guess but three years made a huge lasting legacy as you said social policy but also on the impact in subsequent generations of your party leadership.

PLIBERSEK: He is the iconic figure for making a brave policy stand on a whole range of different issues so he is an inspirational figure in that way. He is inspirational also because there is a whole lot of us who would never have gone to university but for the university changes that he made and he was incredibly generous with his time as well. I noticed the statement from his family talked about him as a loving and generous father. But he was a loving and generous figure in the Labor Party as well. I know many of my colleagues as I did would occasionally visit him in the office or have a cup of coffee in Double Bay and he was so generous with his time and his advice. I mean it always felt like a real thrill as a young person moving into a position of responsibility in the Labor Party actually to be able to go and see Gough Whitlam and say what do you think about these issues, can you tell us a bit more about the history of what were you thinking when you made this decision, how did you come to that position. And he was just phenomenally generous, intellectually and with his time.

GILBERT: A great orator as well wasn’t he?

PLIBERSEK: Yeah, terrific.

GILBERT: And Parliamentary performer.

PLIBERSEK: Although- he was a terrific orator, he had a wonderful turn of phrase. Sometimes he tended to you know make speeches that were a little on the long side and I always I thought it was hilarious Margaret would sit up the front sometimes with a walking stick as they got older and she’d beat, you know bang her stick on the ground and say ‘come on, Gough they have heard enough now’. But again just such a beautiful sign of their relationship.

GILBERT: Jim Middleton my colleague earlier described Gough Whitlam as a flawed genius. I guess it was a tumultuous period the most tumultuous in Australian political time, I suppose arguably with the last few years, but I mean 75, such a tumultuous end to his Prime Ministership. The social policy of course it was against the economic policy, was the vision caught up with the focus so much so that the other things sort of fell away in terms of priority?

PLIBERSEK: I think it is completely unreasonable to expect perfection from our leaders. All you can hope for is that a person honestly does their very best for their country and there is no question that Gough Whitlam was a patriot, that he did exactly what he thought was right for his country. Will people find flaws with some of the decisions he made? Of course they will. In the same way that any Prime Minister will have a review of their time in office that includes the successes, great achievements for our nation and things that might have been done differently but I think you know in the relatively short time that Gough Whitlam was Prime Minister our nation changed for the better. He left a lasting legacy in so many areas and I mean I have always been proud to be part of the party that he had such an impact on.

GILBERT: Well thank you I appreciate your time this morning. Thank you. What a difficult day for you and for the Labor Party.

PLIBERSEK: Thank you.


Add your reaction Share

TRANSCRIPT - Insiders, Sunday 19 October 2014

coats arms










SUBJECT/S: Ebola, Iraq, Indonesia, Vladimir Putin, Ban on facial coverings in Parliament.

BARRIE CASSIDY, PRESENTER: Now we’ll go straight to our program guest, and this morning it’s Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs and Deputy Labor leader Tanya Plibersek. Good morning, welcome.


CASSIDY: Very good. Apparently Julie Bishop and Peter Dutton have written to your party calling for a return to bipartisanship on the Ebola issue. How will you be responding to that?

PLIBERSEK: Well I think it is a bit rough to call for bipartisanship when the Government's plainly doing the wrong thing. We were briefed at the beginning of October about all of the impediments to Australia sending volunteers to West Africa to assist to get this virus under control and, in the weeks subsequent, it appears that the Government has made little to no effort to overcome those impediments. I think it's obvious that if we don't contain Ebola in West Africa, this becomes a greater risk not just to the African continent but to the world more generally. The best way that we can protect Australia and protect Australians is to help stop Ebola in West Africa.

CASSIDY: But the letter, though, accuses your party of having a reckless disregard for the safety of health workers and points out that you are ignoring advice that there is no current capacity to evacuate Australians if anybody catches the virus. Now that's a key point, surely?

PLIBERSEK: A number of health workers have been evacuated to different European countries. We know that the UK and the US are building hospitals specifically for health workers in West Africa. The UK is apparently sending a hospital ship. It is beyond me why other countries are able to make arrangements for their health workers, including now Japan - are able to make arrangements for their health workers and the Australian government is not able to do that. I've got absolute faith in our health officials, our foreign affairs officials and our defence force personnel. I believe if the Government tasked them with finding a solution to this, that they would be able to do it.

CASSIDY: Yeah but the Government points out that the responses they get at the moment is "we'll help out if they can", but that's not good enough. They want ironclad guarantees and until they get the guarantees, nothing will change.

PLIBERSEK: Well, we are getting advice from organisations like the AMA, like the Nurses and Midwives Association, that they have got people who want to go who would go with a bit of extra support from the Government. A bit of- less discouragement and a bit of facilitation. We have international organisations like Medecins Sans Frontieres saying that arrangements have been made for the nationals of other countries, they have been evacuated to European countries for treatment when it's become necessary. I think it is plain that the Government are putting up all sorts of furphies. They are saying "we can't air lift people for 30 hours back to Australia". Nobody is suggesting that. What I'm suggesting is that if the Government made this a priority and asked their public servants to find these solutions, they could be found. I would be interested to know whether the Prime Minister, for example, has spoken to Prime Minister Cameron or to President Obama directly and said "What support can you give our Australian medical personnel who wish to go to West Africa to help?". You’ve got to remember that President Obama, Prime Minister Cameron, the World Health Organisation, the United Nations have all said - and Australia has signed on to a Security Council resolution with 130 other countries - saying that money is fine but what's really needed are expert medical personnel, supplies and equipment and Australia is not prepared to send those.

CASSIDY: When you raise the issue of volunteers, that's where it becomes a bit of a phoney issue, doesn't it? Because you say they are being discouraged but they are not stopping volunteers from going. They say that they won't direct those who they can direct, that is the military personnel.

PLIBERSEK: But Barrie, the thing is Medecins Sans Frontieres are at capacity. They can't support other volunteers, but we have arrangements that Australia can make. We have got, for example, Australian medical assistance teams which are groups of volunteers that are on standby in case of natural disasters, for example, that could be sent in. So you've got self-contained teams of doctors, nurses, depending on the situation, other types of professionals including logisticians that could be deployed. Peter Dutton is saying "We’re going to hang on to them in Darwin in case Ebola comes to Asia, then we'll deploy". The point is, if Ebola gets to Asia, if Ebola gets to the borders of Australia, we have lost control of this. On some estimates, the Centre for Disease Control think that there will be up to 1.4 million Ebola cases by January next year if the disease continues to spread in the way that it has. The World Health Organisation said on 1 October we've got 60 days to get this under control or we don't know what will happen after that, we don't have the capacity to handle what will happen after that. So we have a very small window of opportunity. Australia should be involved in stopping Ebola in West Africa, getting it under control in the three countries most affected. If we are waiting for it to come to our borders, then we are in big trouble.

CASSIDY: Let me quote something that Phil Coorey wrote in the Financial Review, "If an Australian dies a horrible death in a far off land due to lack of medical care, it is the Government that gets it in the neck". Now that's the reality, isn't it?

PLIBERSEK: You know, no humanitarian mission like this is without risk. It is absolutely right for the Government to be upfront about the risks involved. In the same way that when we send Australian Defence Force personnel to northern Iraq on a humanitarian mission, we are upfront about the fact that there are risks involved. But in the same way that our defence personnel are highly trained and highly experienced and in many instances are wanting to go into situations like this that they know are dangerous because they choose this work because of their commitment to helping on a global scale, so, too, our health personnel that are highly trained, highly skilled, have chosen this work because they feel they can make a difference to humanity. So, too, they should be supported by their Government to give the help they know they can give.

CASSIDY: Can I then go to an issue where there is bipartisan support, certainly to this point, and that is on the approach to terrorism and Iraq. Do you find it, though, at least curious that the SAS, the Special Forces, are still waiting to be deployed, the legal work still hasn't been done?

PLIBERSEK: I'm a bit perplexed about why it's taken so long, but I think it's an interesting comparison to make. We pre-deployed Australian Federal Police to Europe to be ready to go to Ukraine to help in the search for MH17 and the recovery of Australians from that crash site. We have pre-deployed SAS to United Arab Emirates to be ready to go into northern Iraq. The Opposition supported both of these important missions. It's a bit mystifying why you wouldn't, in the same way, say to medical teams "We are trying to put in place the arrangements that you will need to keep you safe, be ready to go". On the issue of the SAS, it is absolutely vital to have those legal arrangements in place for our personnel if they are assisting the Iraqi Army. We need to know very clearly the arrangements that that assistance is provided on. I don't blame the Government at all for insisting on having those arrangements properly in place but it is a bit perplexing it is taking so long.

CASSIDY: Okay now on Indonesia, what do you make of the words from the incoming Indonesian President who is warning Australia not to stray into Indonesian waters? This seems to be an old issue. They've already conceded that they inadvertently strayed and they have sorted it out and it won't happen again.

PLIBERSEK: Well, I think it's quite telling that this has been in the first interview that Jokowi has had with an Australian media outlet. It is obviously, as we said all along, a very big deal for Indonesia that the Government is making announcements about what happens on Indonesian soil and in Indonesian waters without ever talking to the Indonesian Government. And we think that the Navy have inadvertently entered Indonesian waters around six times perhaps. I think the Navy has been put in an extremely difficult position by the Government and the cost of that is to our very important strategic and economic relationship with one of our closest neighbours. Indonesia of course is important to us strategically but it is also a fast-growing economy with a very fast-growing middle class and will become increasingly important as a trading partner for us as well. It is not a very good start.

CASSIDY: Okay just a couple of other quick issues. Julie Bishop did manage to button hole Vladimir Putin in Milan and she won an agreement from him. He says he will use his influence with the Russian rebels in Ukraine to open up access to the site of the plane crash. Does that seem like a good outcome to you?

PLIBERSEK: Look I certainly hope that there is an improvement for Australian and other personnel who are wanting to get or needing to get access to the crash site to undertake their very important work. Unfortunately, I mean we heard that at the Security Council, we heard that the outcome of the Security Council resolution that Australia sponsored was that investigators would have unimpeded access to the crash site, that proved not to be the case. So I mean, I think all we can hope for is that there is an improvement now.

CASSIDY: A good enough outcome to negate the need for Tony Abbott to shirtfront Vladimir Putin in Brisbane?

PLIBERSEK: Well look, I think the problem here is - we have said all along that many Australians will find it difficult to welcome Vladimir Putin to Australia but we also understand, as an Opposition, that this is not Australia's meeting alone. Australia is hosting the G20. We are not in charge of invitations and uninviting people. If Tony Abbott - Tony Abbott can't uninvite Vladimir Putin, if he is embarrassed by the fact he doesn't have the capacity to stop him coming to Australia, he should just explain that to the Australian people, that this is an international meeting, he was unable to stop Vladimir Putin coming. He shouldn't overcompensate with this sort of sandpit language.

CASSIDY: And just finally, Parliament sits tomorrow and still the presiding officers' segregation decision stands. Does that bother you and is the Opposition doing anything to try and overturn it?

PLIBERSEK: We wrote to the presiding officers on the day that the announcement was made. It is an absurd suggestion. Anybody who is in the galleries in Question Time has been through two security checking points. It is a ridiculous - just a ridiculous position that anyone should be segregated. Our Parliament is one of the few in the world that actually has these open galleries. Many other Parliaments have galleries behind glass. It is one of the signs of our strong and healthy democracy that Australian citizens are invited in to watch their parliamentarians at work. Whether they are doing a good job or a bad job, they are invited in to see it first-hand. And it is, I think, profoundly,  deeply insulting and stupid to say that women wearing coverings should be further segregated.

CASSIDY: Thanks for your time this morning.

PLIBERSEK: Thank you.


Add your reaction Share

TRANSCRIPT - Doorstop Interview, Saturday 18 October 2014

coats arms










Subject/s: Ebola, President Putin, Mathias Cormann’s comments, Indonesia.

TANYA PLIBERSEK, DEPUTY OPPOSITION LEADER: [audio cuts in] It’s an enormous concern that $10 million that the Government has promised to the United Nations has actually not reached the United Nations in order to be distributed to where it’s needed. I can’t stress highly enough how critical time is in managing this Ebola outbreak. We hear from the Centre of Disease Control in the United States by early next year, we might have as many 1.4 million people affected by Ebola. We hear that by the end of this year, it could be 10,000 new infections every week. At the moment there are about 10,000 people affected by Ebola and about 4,000 have died. But this number is growing exponentially. And if we don’t contain and control Ebola in West Africa, the risk to Africa and the globe and of course to Australia, continues to grow. We’ve also heard in recent days, health specialists warning that should there be an Ebola outbreak in Asia, there would be some health systems very ill-prepared to deal with it. Of course our Australian health system is a very strong health system. We have many experts who are ideally placed to help control a virus like Ebola. And we’ve got excellent hospitals with very professional staff here in Australia. But we cannot wait, we cannot afford to wait until Ebola reaches out to Australia before Australia becomes part of the global effort to control this virus. It’s very important that we support our doctors, our nurses, our health professionals who are willing and able to go to West Africa to do that work, that work that they are trained to do, that work that they are committed to doing. We see that world leaders like President Obama, like David Cameron, are saying that all countries have to be a part of this global effort to contain Ebola in West Africa. That it’s easy for all of us to keep our nations safe if we all contribute to the international effort to get this virus under control while it’s still concentrated in three main countries in West Africa. We’ve seen that countries like the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, Cuba, China, Japan, South Africa, are all putting personnel on the ground, sending supplies and equipment. They’re all making provision for their personnel to be able to go safely to volunteer, to treat affected patients in West Africa. It cannot be beyond the capability of our Australian government to make arrangements for Australian volunteers who wish to go, to have the confidence that they can safely go to do the work that they’ve been trained to do and that the Government’s got their back. Okay, any questions?

JOURNALIST: The Government has said that the UN has confirmed that that funding has been received and that the website just hasn’t been updated. Are you assured by that?

PLIBERSEK: Well, I hope that that’s the case. I know that the West Australian is a fine newspaper and I’m sure that they’ve got the most recent, publicly available information and I hope that is the case, that the Government has in fact transferred the money and that the website is yet to be updated.

JOURNALIST: What more should Australia be doing?

PLIBERSEK: Well, Australia should be sending skilled, willing Australian personnel with the support of the Australian Government to help fight Ebola in West Africa. We have, for example, Australian Medical Assistance Teams that are groups of volunteers - doctors, nurses, sometimes firefighters for example, who have the logistic capability and others - self-contained teams that are especially set up to go to disaster areas to provide medical assistance. That’s one example of what we could be doing to help. We also know from the Australian Medical Association, from the Nurses and Midwives, that they have people, nurses and doctors, contacting their professional associations saying ‘I am willing to go, I am willing to volunteer, how can my government help me get there?’. That’s one example - and Australian volunteers, who just need government assistance, and government backing to get there, rather than the discouragement and road blocks they’ve received to date.

JOURNALIST:  Just in regards to the MH17 crash, are you happy that Julie Bishop received assurances from President Putin that Russia’s influence will be used to allow investigators near the crash site or to the crash site?

PLIBERSEK: Well, it’s very disappointing that the investigations have been thwarted to date, that of course fighting continues in Eastern Ukraine, and it would be a very good thing if President Putin used his influence with Russian backed separatists to allow access to the crash site. It is important that Australian, Dutch and other investigators can have their safety guaranteed in an area where conflict continues.

JOURNALIST: What’s your response to the Finance Minister calling Bill Shorten an ‘economic girly man’?

PLIBERSEK: Well, I think it’s extraordinary that we’ve got a Prime Minister who talks about shirt-fronting leaders of other nations and we’ve now got a  Finance Minister who thinks he’s Arnold Schwarzenegger. What Mathias Cormann is missing is that this Budget hurts vulnerable Australians. It’s Australians who have rejected this Budget, they’ve rejected the cuts to health, rejected the cuts to education, rejected the cuts to pensions. Mathias Cormann is acting all tough. What he should be doing instead is going back to the drawing board and finding a budget that is economically responsible and socially fair.

JOURNALIST: Do you think that the comments are sexist and that an apology is required?

PLIBERSEK: Well, I think we’d be in a different environment if we had a few more women sitting around the Cabinet table.

JOURNALIST: Just back on Russian President Putin, are you- is Labor happy that his staff have indicated that he will indeed be attending G20?

PLIBERSEK: Well, I think that as Bill Shorten has said on more than one occasion, Australians will find it very difficult to welcome President Putin to Australia. Australians have been devastated by the shooting down of MH17 and the 38 lives lost, Australian citizens and residents. And of course also the citizens and residents of other nations that were also affected in that terrible tragedy. So we will find it very difficult as a nation to welcome President Putin here because it’s pretty clear that he hasn’t to date used his influence with rebels to allow access to the crash site and so on.

JOURNALIST: Do you believe his assurances then that he will try to facilitate that?

PLIBERSEK: Well, I hope we see a change in behaviour.

JOURNALIST: On the $2 million [inaudible]

PLIBERSEK: I’m sorry, I didn’t hear the beginning of your question.

JOURNALIST: The $2 million [inaudible]. Is it somewhat disappointing [inaudible]

PLIBERSEK: Oh look, I’m sorry, I don’t enough about the details of that story to comment fairly on it.

JOURNALIST: [Inaudible] relations with Indonesia [inaudible] for the Australian Navy to enter Indonesian waters. What’s your response to that?

PLIBERSEK: Well, I think the first interview of the new President of Indonesia, with media- Australian media – is very telling indeed. I think it’s very clear that President Joko Widodo is very concerned about the way the Australian Government has been making announcements about what’s going to happen on Indonesian soil and  Indonesian waters without ever having discussed it with the Indonesian Government and is of course very concerned about the six or so incursions into Indonesian waters by Australian naval vessels in the last year or so. It’s not surprising that the new President of Indonesia is sending a very strong message to Tony Abbott, that the President of Indonesia sees the sovereignty of Indonesia as a very important issue for him. This certainly shows that despite the claims that Tony Abbott has made, the relationship with Indonesia has not been repaired, it’s not in the healthy state that it was before Tony Abbott came into government, and there is still a work of repair job to be done. Thanks, everyone.


Add your reaction Share

MEDIA RELEASE - Ebola Crisis

coats arms









Labor is concerned by reports the Abbott Government's $10 million pledge to help fight the Ebola crisis is yet to reach the United Nations.

The Abbott Government must answer this serious revelation, printed today in The West Australian newspaper.

The UN has said the Ebola outbreak must be controlled within 60 days or else the world faces an unprecedented situation for which there is no plan. So it's vital support is delivered to the UN as quickly as possible.

The $10 million is part of the Abbott Government's total $18 million contribution to help deal with the Ebola crisis. One philanthropist has donated $25 million. That one, individual donor has given more than the nation of Australia.

If the international community, including Australia, doesn't do more, some predictions suggest the number of Ebola cases could reach 1.4 million by 2015.

For weeks now, Labor has been calling on the Abbott Government to significantly step up Australia's efforts.


Add your reaction Share

TRANSCRIPT - 702 Breakfast, Friday 17 October 2014

coats arms










Subject/s: Ebola.

ROBBIE BUCK, PRESENTER: Tanya Plibersek is the Federal Member for Sydney, Deputy Leader of the Opposition and Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs and International Development and joins me this morning. Good morning.


BUCK: Okay. Well we have heard the Health Minister, Peter Dutton speaking just there. Isn’t that a fair enough point that if you have Australian personnel, and I guess our situation is unique in where we are, trying to get people back from West Africa, if they have contracted Ebola, poses a very difficult situation?

PLIBERSEK: It certainly would be difficult to bring people back to Australia but that is not what anyone is suggesting.  What we’re suggesting is that arrangements should be made and could be made with the UK, with the European countries, with the United States to, in the first instance, take any Australians that might be affected to one of those countries. We also know of course that the UK government is building a hospital, temporary hospitals for health workers in West Africa. We know that the UK is likely to send a hospital ship. There are other arrangements that could be put in place. Australia has AUSMAT teams, so they’re Australian Medical Assistance Teams, which are made up of volunteers who have doctors, nurses, other health professionals, who have said they are willing to be deployed into crisis situations, that is one alternative. We have also got individual Australian doctors, nurses and other professionals who have told the AMA, who have told the Nurses Association that they would go if support arrangements could be put in place. The problem here, Robbie, is not that there are no arrangements that could be put in place, the problem is a lack of willingness from the Australian Government to put those arrangements in place.

BUCK: Well, why is that?

PLIBERSEK: Well, you would have to ask the Government why they have not tried harder to do this-

BUCK: Do we know if they have made any overtures to- for some of these outcomes that you've been suggesting?

PLIBERSEK: Yes, I believe that they have spoken with other countries but I do not think it is beyond the capacity of a country like Australia to put in place arrangements. The thing you have got to remember is, there’s already Australians there on the ground who have gone with voluntary organisations so we need to be confident that we can look after them. We know that we have teams like AUSMAT teams, Australian Medical Assistance Teams, that could be deployed in similar situations, that they have been set up specifically to do this. We know that there are Australians who are willing to go with organisations like Médecins Sans Frontières, but those organisations are stretched to the capacity- their maximum capacity at the moment. What we are saying is that when we have Australians who are trained and able and willing to go, it is a shocking thing that their government will not put in arrangements to support them to do that.

BUCK: Is it risky though to have Australians on the ground there, particularly if the crisis worsens deeply, does it mean that other nations, whether we have got an agreement with them not, if they are overwhelmed, they’ll be taking their own citizens first other than Australians, wouldn’t they?

PLIBERSEK: Robbie, of course it is risky for individuals to go there, people would be doing something that is incredibly brave and beyond most of us, but we know that some Australians have already done that and more wish to. And I really- I admire that dedication. But the reason they want to go is that they know that we have a 60 day window to stop the spread of this virus. The World Health Organisation has said this virus is spreading exponentially. There’s 10,000 people infected at the moment, if we do not get a handle on it in the next 60 days by, some estimates, January next year, we will have almost a million and a half people infected. And then to say, you know, we do not want to send people now because we want to protect Australia from this virus. When you have got millions of people affected around the world it becomes very, very difficult to protect Australia, so we have an opportunity to act now. Yes, people are going into danger, there is no doubt about that. But they are people who have trained for this, they are dedicated people who wish- who really wish to assist to get this virus under control. How can it be that we are not big enough to support them to do that?

BUCK: Do you agree though that we shouldn’t be sending in any personnel until any of those arrangements are made first up?

PLIBERSEK: I think we have to make arrangements for what happens when people get sick. We have already got Australians there. We need to have those arrangements in place for those Australians, but countries around the world are putting those arrangements in place. There was a report yesterday that the Japanese have not sent a team yet and in fact we read overnight that they are preparing to deploy, that they are putting those arrangements in place now. I certainly do not say that we need to airlift Australians home over a 30 hour flight, I do not think that is a reasonable solution. I simply do not believe that we cannot make an arrangement with one of our partners. We are, right now, in Northern Iraq with the United States and a range of other countries providing humanitarian assistance to the people of Northern Iraq. Are we saying that none of those partners are willing to partner with us in West Africa to put Australian personnel who are trained and willing and able to go onto the ground there with some back up?

BUCK: Up until now, there has been bipartisan support for Australia's response to Ebola, what has changed this week for you?

PLIBERSEK: Well, we have been happy that the Government sent some money. They sent initially $8 million and another $10 million, total $18 million. That is not bad, I mean it’s not much given that one individual has put in $25 million, we’ve put in less than one generous individual. But there’s nothing wrong with sending money, it’s just that the World Health Organisation, the Centre for Disease Control in the United States, our own Australian Medical Association, our own Public Health Association, our own Nurses Association, all of these organisations are saying that this virus is getting out of control, we’ve got a window to shut it down now, if we do not, the consequences for West Africa and the world are dire.  We have got people who are ready and willing to go and we are not assisting them. Of course we wanted to give the Government some time to put those arrangements in place. We simply have not seen willingness for them to do that and what’s changed, Robbie, what changed is, we’re getting warnings every day, like the World Health Organisation in the last 48 hours has said we have got a 60 day window. That is new information saying if we do not close it down in the next 60 days, it is unpredictable, the consequences are unpredictable on a global scale. The more information we have about the spread of the virus the more critical it becomes that we support Australians who are able to go.

BUCK: Okay, Tanya Plibersek, thanks for your time this morning.

PLIBERSEK: Thank you, Robbie.


Add your reaction Share

TRANSCRIPT - The Today Show, Friday 17 October 2014

coats arms












LISA WILKINSON, PRESENTER: Joining us now to discuss the week in politics is Minister for Immigration Scott Morrison and Deputy Opposition Leader Tanya Plibersek. Good morning to both of you.



WILKINSON: Tanya, you've been very vocal on this. You don't believe that the Government is doing enough?

PLIBERSEK: On some estimates, we have got the chance that 1.4 million people will be affected by this virus by January. So the Centre for Disease Control are saying that we have got 10,000 people infected now. If the rate keeps growing in the way it has been going, we will see over a million people affected by the beginning of next year. I think it is absolutely critical that we take the advice of the World Health Organisation and use this 60 day window to shut down the spread of this virus. If we don't get a handle on it, we can't begin to predict what the effect will be on the whole world. At the moment, the virus is mostly contained to three countries in West Africa. But you see that we are seeing cases in the United States, in Spain, in France today it looks like there are some indications that there might be someone there who is affected. That’s with 10,000 people having the virus. What happens when there is a million or two million.

WILKINSON: What do you want to see the Government do that they are not currently doing?

PLIBERSEK: At the moment, they are discouraging Australians who want to go to help. We have got people, doctors, nurses, other health professionals, who want to go and offer assistance. We have had - we have heard from the from the Nurses Association, we have heard from the Australian Medical Association, that we have got skilled Australians who have trained for many years to provide exactly the sort of assistance that West Africa is crying out for and our Government is saying that they won't assist them to go there.

WILKINSON: Scott, we understand that there are obviously concerns about deploying Australians to tackle the outbreak. But don't we have a responsibility as a developed nation?

MORRISON: Well, our first responsibility is also surely to do what we need to do here in Australia and make sure that our systems here are up to scratch and they are, and to be constantly monitoring that situation. We also need to be mindful of any potential regional response we might need to make if things escalate to that level. We have already, as you said in your introduction, committed $18 million to the international effort. There is no suggestion that we are restraining people from going to that area if they wish to provide their medical expertise. The question that's being posed to the Government is should we be directing people...

PLIBERSEK: No, that is not true Scott.

MORRISON: Should we be directing people who would be put in harm's way with no credible extraction plan that is the advice from all of our key agencies and I...

PLIBERSEK: That is untrue. This is...

MORRISON: I let you speak Tanya. Tanya...

PLIBERSEK: You are not telling the truth.

MORRISON: Well, Tanya, what I'm saying is that you know that there is no credible extraction plan to get people out of that place if we direct them into that environment.

PLIBERSEK: And I know you're not trying to find one...

MORRISON: If they are seeking to go there… well that is not true either Tanya, if you want to play politics with Ebola, then that is exactly what you are doing. What the Australian Government is doing is governing on the basis of practical reality, not sentiment. I think that is a stark contrast to what we saw from the previous six years when Labor were in office. We are dealing with this matter practically and responsibly. We are part of an international effort. We are part of a regional response if we need to be. And we are ensuring the right measures are in place here in Australia to keep people safe because that is what we do as a Government.

PLIBERSEK: Well, one generous philanthropist has given more money than the Australian Government. One you person has given $25 million.

MORRISON: Are in you suggesting we should put people in harm’s way?


MORRISON: That is what you are suggesting.

PLIBERSEK: No Scott, nobody is suggesting that.

MORRISON: Tanya, explain to me what is - what is the extraction plan?

PLIBERSEK: What we are suggesting, Scott, is that volunteers who are trained and willing and able to go should have the support of the Australian Government to do so. At the moment, the Australian Government is saying "We have got no plans in place to help and support you to go and do what you've been trained to do all your life". We have got doctors...

MORRISON: Tanya, that is a complete misrepresentation. What you are talking about is people who may choose to go voluntarily and there is no restraint on those persons doing that. But they have to be acquainted with the risks. And that is what the Government has simply done. But if you are going to instruct, demand people to go into that region, as part of...

PLIBERSEK: Scott, nobody is suggesting that anyone should be sent there against their will.

WILKINSON: The truth is you also can't stop people from going into the region because there are aid workers...

MORRISON: Of course and we can't.

WILKINSON: Over there at the moment and we do have to face this crisis. Just very quickly to finish on this Scott, if an aid worker does have the virus, would they survive the 30 hour trip home?

MORRISON: Our advice is no.

PLIBERSEK: But, Lisa, you don't need to come back to Australia. You should be able to evacuate to the US, to the UK, to Europe, to one of our partner countries. We partner with these countries all the time in humanitarian crisis.

MORRISON: But you've got to have the commitment available. You have to have that commitment.

PLIBERSEK: Oh my goodness. We are partnering with these countries right now in the Middle East to provide humanitarian relief in northern Iraq. It is absolutely not beyond the capacity of this Government should they wish to put these sorts of arrangements in place.

WILKINSON: All right. We are going to have to leave that one there...

MORRISON: I think it is very disappointing, sorry Lisa, but the Government is trying to protect Australians and if the Opposition wants to put them in harm's way on the basis of sentiment, then I think that is very disappointing.


PLIBERSEK: Scott, what will happen when there are millions of people affected around the world? The World Health Organisation has told us we have 60 days to close the window on this virus.

MORRISON: Our arrangements will be in place here in Australia and in the region. That is what will happen because that is what we are focussed on.

PLIBERSEK: You won't be able to protect people when there are millions around the world. We need to stop this virus now.

WILKINSON: I think everyone is definitely agreed on that. Just to finish, have we got time - we were really hoping to play something from Shaun Micallef earlier this week. We are going to have time. We are going to make time. This is Mad As Hell, Shaun Micallef sticking it to Bill Shorten. Have a term look at this.


WILKINSON: You are not safe really in politics, are you? You are of always going to cop it.

PLIBERSEK: I think one of the things that is great about Bill is that he has just got that really colourful turn of phrase that really cuts through.

WILKINSON: Shaun Micallef, a genius Scott?

MORRISON: Look, I've given him plenty of material over the last year or so and in politics, you know, you have got to be able to cop it whichever way and we all have words that go off into space every now and then. Even in the media too, I suggest, so good on Shaun, he is a good laugh.

WILKINSON: There are days when English is my second language Scott, I have to agree with you. Thank you very much for your time this morning.



Add your reaction Share