Transcript - ABC 891 - Two Chrisses - 9 Nov 09

SUBJECTS: Asylum seekers; ETS and Climate Change

(greetings omitted)

David BEVAN: Now, Chris Pyne...we noticed that John Howard making a lot of statements in retirement...in the news and so on...and having a go at asylum seekers. Saying that Kevin Rudd failed and he had it right. Many Liberal MPs were unhappy with the latter stages of the asylum seeker debate and the damage being done to them by the Howard Government's stance on asylum seekers. How do you feel about that?

Christopher PYNE: Well first of all I'd like to say that John Howard hasn't said much at all since he was defeated in 2007. Now it's two years later and he's had very little to say about the current Government and his term in office and I think that doing an interview ranging across a couple of issues two years later is not exactly a hanging offence and I think he's entitled to say whatever he likes about public affairs. In terms of unhappiness with the previous Government's policies, the thing people were unhappy with largely was women and children in detention. Women and children were out of detention in total by 2005 and in fact had started to be removed from detention in 2002. The women and children in detention policy was one from the Keating and Hawke Governments, induced by Gerry Hand. So Labor can't lay claim to any great moral high ground when it comes to this issue. But what John Howard has stated is that the policies have stopped the boats and asylum seekers from 2002 to 2008, when there were virtually no arrivals for a number of fundamental reasons. One of which was that anyone who came that way could not access "Family Reunion" as one of their policy...program for the future. The Rudd Government dismantled those policies and of course this is why many of these asylum seekers are young men. Because if they get permanent residency, which almost all will, they'll be able to access "Family Reunion" and get their whole families here as well. That was a big disincentive from the Howard Government...because they couldn't do that.

Christopher SCHACHT: Well what if they came by the airport? We get more people coming by jet aeroplane landing at our airports, going to the customs barrier and claiming to be refugees. Do you do the same to them?

PYNE: But that's not the issue.

SCHACHT: What about equity of treatment? We get a lot more asylum seekers than by boat who land at an airport, come to the customs barrier and claim to be seeking refugee status. Do you also ban them if they've actually got residency. Could they then claim to get "Family Reunion"?

PYNE: There's two things I'll say to that. Number one, I assume you're therefore saying that the Labor Government is getting border protection right and that the changes they made in August 2008 were the right changes even though they've led to 48 boat arrivals and 2, 208 asylum seekers. They're risking their lives coming here for incentives the Labor Government gave them. So I assume you're sure that is gong well. Number two, the people who arrive by plane already have a VISA. Otherwise they wouldn't be allowed to board the plane in their country of origin. They have a passport. They have papers. Certainly they've come here on false pretences. A lot of them, of course, return home but we know who they are and we've given them permission to come here in the first place. The difference between those people, who shouldn't do what they do and the people coming by boat is that they generally have no idea who they are. They don't have passports or papers and that is a whole different issue.

SCHACHT: So you're saying to me that when the Fraser Liberal Government let in tens of thousands of boat people, directly and indirectly that the policy was wrong? The present Lieutenant Governor of South Australia is one of those people who arrived on one of those leaking boats in the Northern Territory. You're telling me the Fraser Government had it wrong.

Matthew ABRAHAM: Well, Chris Schacht...are you then saying that Kevin Rudd has got it wrong because Kevin Rudd should be taking a Malcolm Fraser approach, which is allow these people to come to our shores?

SCHACHT: I've always said that they should be processed. You cannot let anybody into Australia...

BEVAN: Well everybody thinks you should be processed, you've got to do the processing...but that's a red herring!

SCHACHT: The people on the boat outside...they're going to be processed one way or another. They're going to be processed on the boat or on land in Indonesia...

ABRAHAM: ...would it be better for Kevin Rudd to not walk down both sides of the street? To decide to either pick the Malcolm Fraser side and say "come to this country and then we'll probably process your nationals"...

SCHACHT: ...look, I don't want to encourage anybody to come to Australia without the proper process. But under international law...

ABRAHAM: ...no, no, no...that's not a proper process. They just took them...

BEVAN: ...it about what you can stick to...

SCHACHT: ...we signed that convention in the 1950s about dealing with people who are genuine refugees and you can't predetermine unless you do the process if they're genuine.

BEVAN: Why is it important that Kevin Rudd has them processed in Indonesia? Christopher, you're saying the most likely outcome is that they're going to be processed and farmed out. We'll take some, the Canadians will take some and some may end up going back to Sri Lanka. I can't see the point. If you're going to process them, you can process them in Australia and still have the Canadians take some...

SCHACHT: ...well the point is to process them...

BEVAN: ...the policy push is to have them processed anywhere but in Australia.

SCHACHT: The...and I have to say...those under the Howard...the Pacific Island...when they went off and said those Tampa people will never be able to come to Australia. They said it to Nauru, to PNG and guess what? A significant number have ended up in Australia because they met the criteria. Which ever way you do the processing, I'm not hung up about it.

ABRAHAM: Well, Chris Pyne...Chris Schacht wants to turn the clock back to the 1970s and Malcolm Fraser. What about you?

PYNE: I don't want to do that. There is nothing at all humane about having border protection policies that encourage people to come here by boat, paying people smugglers $15 000 USD to bring them here. We had the boat sink off the Cocos Keeling Islands last week. There are four other vessels that have also sunk trying to come to Australia. There have been floods of other ones from those boats but there has been a loss of life. The reason people are making this perilous journey is because the Labor Government changed the policy in August 2008, which became a significant pull factor to try and come to Australia. There is no way that you can get away from that.

BEVAN: You sound like Cory Bernardi.

PYNE: I do not, I sound nothing like him. Let's not make this a derogatory issue that if you don't agree with open borders, somehow you are hardline, tough or lacking compassion. I support the refugee policies that we have had over the years. We have had the second highest number of humanitarian refugees coming to Australia in any country in the world per capita after Canada. Australians generally support that. What I don't support is compassion being equated with open borders. An open border policy that we've seen since 2000....you're trying to walk both sides of the road, you can't have it...

SCHACHT: ...you're sounding like Pauline Hanson!

PYNE: No, I'm not sounding like Pauline Hanson and that's where the censorship board of the left is trying to muzzle this. You're trying to muzzle the debate and say ""if you support Christopher Pyne now, you're a Pauline Hanson supporter"". That is outrageous! Nobody has ever accused me in my entire political career of ever being like Pauline Hanson, because I'm not. There is nothing in the lease bit compassionate about a border protection regime that encourages people to come here by leaky boat that causes damage and loss of life off the Australian coast. This is the embarrassing outcome of the August 2008 changes by the Government and they stand condemned for that. That is not compassionate, that is sensible management of a difficult situation.

ABRAHAM: Let's go to calls.

(recording interrupted)

Caller: ...ignoring this on Climate Change and showing how the Government's ETS is riddled with dubious support and how the Liberal amendments want to increase it. I'm concerned about Climate Change because Australia is the developed country with the most to lose if we don't get action.

BEVAN: OK, and you're worried about...

Caller: ...lobby groups affecting both of out political parties...the coal lobby...even the Russian...well they don't have the money. Russia's richest man in 2008, it's the power of very big money.

BEVAN: Well, Greenpeace, the Conservation Council, they're very effective lobby groups...

Caller: ...but they're not actually in the Emissions treatment, you know, the top 20 companies expected to receive the most Government assistance are proposed to...

BEVAN: ...you've rung up to put that to C1 and C2? I should let you, Chris Schacht...

SCHACHT: ...a lot of this is transparent, that there are lobby groups on one side...the Greens, Wilderness Society etcetera. Irrespective of how much money they have or don't have across to business groups and anywhere in between. Seeing that they're lobbying for their point of view. In the whole history of Australian lobby groups going back a hundred years have been around. The Trade Union Movement lobbies. The Business Council lobbies to get their particular view on behalf of their members interests adopted by the elected Government.  That is just part of the democratic process. So a long as it's transparent...one thing I would draw a line at is the Real Estate Industry, the property developers in Sydney...they're paying big donations to both parties to influence...

BEVAN: So you're saying that doesn't happen here?

SCHACHT: So long as it's transparent it's in the best interests...who they are, what they're paying. That's the main issue. People can judge if the money is buying political party policies. Well I have to say what's being raised in Sydney has been known for many years...people have openly commented it is the biggest loss of funds.

BEVAN: And that's not happening here?

SCHACHT: As long as it's open and transparent...when the Lobby Registrar is established next month...

ABRAHAM: Chris Pyne?

PYNE: There are two things I'd say to that. Number one, I agree with Ian that the influence of not so much lobby but special interest groups is definitely on the rise in politics. Of course the most powerful of the special interest groups is the Trade Union Movement so not just big business or business, it is a lobby group and the most powerful is the Union Movement. What I would do is actually ban all donations from groups, organisations and I've long supported that. A ban on all donations and I think the people that should be able to donate to political parties are individuals who are using their own money so they make their own decisions whether they are placing money into political parties. In particular, candidates. If an individual has to make that decision I think you'll get quite a different result. Even though elections would be cheaper because there's a lot less money in donations, I don't think the voters would complain at less electioneering.

ABRAHAM: Let's go to Glenn from Adelaide. Hello Glenn?

Caller GLENN: Yes hello Matt and Dave. I just want to say to Chris Pyne I'm very disappointed at the approach your Party's taken on the asylum seeker issue. I think the reason people are willing to come on small boats is because conditions have become so dangerous in their own country that they feel they have nothing to lose and I think we need to find an orderly way to find people who need refugee status to the country.

Caller PHIL: Yes hello, I think the spokesman for the Tamils are bribing themselves here. Now, Isobel Redmond's willing to be tasered, and if a person was a grumpy drunk he could be tasered, well why not taser this leader and get him to obey the legal instructions?

Caller ALAN: Good morning, is there any chance your two guests could discuss the issue of asylum seekers without all the politics? Why not take into account international law and humanitarianism? Including the media, bring it down to political point scoring?

SCHACHT: Well we find the UN convention on refugees from the 1950s is still a binding treaty on us and it should be the basis of the debate. The reason we've got these Tamils is there's been a civil war in Sri Lanka. Two or three thousand Tamils are either in concentration camps or in great fear of their lives. So they will take a risk and they will use some of their money, which by the way, Jews in the 30s and 40s in Europe used their money to get out of being gassed. Now if you're poor you can't use straight money...no-one decried the Jews using their money to get out of Germany...there has never been wrong under the UN convention on refugees. You don't criticise someone for using money got get away from their well-founded fear of persecution.

PYNE: Well I don't think anyone has suggested they shouldn't use money to escape from difficult circumstances. The point is that people smugglers are gaining from the misery of people wanting to leave the country. Not just Sri Lanka but Afghanis, Pakistanis...there are many people who'd obviously rather live here than their country of origin. The point is we do need to take a fair share of refugees in a country that is as lucky as Australia. We take 14,000 a year. It is the second-highest number of any country per capita in the entire world. If you don't have an orderly program and let people come by boat and settle in our country the upwards of 22 million people in the world who describe themselves as refugees come to the reasonable conclusion...those people who argue that all asylum seekers who come here are saying the are prepared to take 22 million people who are travelling around looking for a new country. Obviously this is impossible so that is why Government, whether Liberal or Labor needs to have a policy. Under the Howard Government the boats stopped and we had an orderly humanitarian program. The Rudd Government changed the policies in August 2008, there is no getting away from that. Since that time we have had 48 boats and 2,200 people. This debate can be characterised by a sensible, calm and reasonable discussion and is not helped by those who are particularly emotive and describe people like myself who have a different view to that of the current Government being like Pauline Hanson. That's where the debate went off the rails early in this program.

SCHACHT: If your Government was still in and the war broke out in Sri Lanka...irrespective of your law you'd want to have boat people coming from Sri Lanka...

PYNE: ...no, you can't say that...hang on, the facts are the Australian Federal Police in March warned the Government. It's not because of that, there are always push factors around the world, whether it's Iraq or Sri Lanka...

BEVAN: ...Chris Pyne, I think you've had a really good run...

SCHACHT: ...I'm just saying, the big urge has been with Tamils coming from civil war where there were thousands killed. They have no trust in authority...two-hundred-thousand plus are in concentration camps. No matter what the rule is, I would suggest it would occur because the Tamil boat people are desperate and so fearful.

PYNE: Well you can assert that but the Federal Police warned the Government in March that the changes to the Boarder Protection policies in August 2008 were being marketed by people smugglers around the world saying Australia is now open.

SCHACHT: Overwhelmingly they came from Sri Lanka because the situation was so bad.

PYNE: The international organisation, the IOM, also warned the changes to border protection policies were helping people smugglers market Australia and of course the asylum seekers themselves admitting softer border protection policies helped them choose to come to Australia and the Indonesian Ambassador warned about the policies to Australia...so you can say what you like!

ABRAHAM: We're as a circular point now, which frustrates our listeners! One of our listeners suggested a talking stick, but how would we get it back? If we give it to Chris Schacht, we'll have to taser him to get it back!

(ends)