Source: Australian Treasurer
Oliva Caisley:
To unpack that and much, much more today, let’s bring in our political panel, LNP Senator Paul Scarr and Assistant Minister for Competition Andrew Leigh.
Welcome to you both to the program. There is plenty of news to get through today. Paul let’s start with you quickly first. You’re in Queensland, which is in the path of Cyclone Alfred.
Paul Scarr:
Yep.
Caisley:
How prepared is your community?
Scarr:
I think the community is as prepared as it can be. There’s very close liaison between all 3 levels of government: the federal government, the state government, the local government authorities. Sandbags are being made available, people are being given warnings and suggestions and recommendations as to how to prepare. And the community’s coming together, as Queenslanders always come together, whether or not it’s in North Queensland or in the southeast corner, we come together at times like this and help each other.
Caisley:
And Paul, we just heard there before the WA Premier Roger Cook referring to the American Vice President as a ‘knob’ over that extraordinary argument that took place in the Oval Office over the weekend. Is that an appropriate way for a state leader to be speaking?
Scarr:
I don’t believe so. I don’t believe it is. And I don’t believe it’s helpful. And from my perspective, I think our focus here in Australia should be on Australia’s commitment to the people of the Ukraine, and in respect of that commitment, it’s quite bipartisan.
And before the last election, the Coalition government had a very strong position with respect to assisting the people of Ukraine and Ukraine’s right to its sovereignty, its own secure sovereign borders, and that policy has continued, notwithstanding there was a change in government after the last election. So, I think we should focus on what Australia’s policy is.
Caisley:
And Andrew, what did you think?
Andrew Leigh:
Well, US politics is endlessly interesting, and it’s always tempting to express your view every time something happens over in the US. But we’re really focused right now on the challenges that Australia faces.
As Paul said, preparing for Cyclone Alfred, which is looking like making landfall either on Thursday or Friday of this week.
I would urge any of your viewers who are able‑bodied to consider signing up for EV CREW, a great on‑the‑ground operation which allows you to help out in the local community.
And as Paul said, there’s bipartisan support for Ukraine. Australia has given $1.5 billion in assistance, of which $1.3 billion is military aid.
Caisley:
We have just seen in the past couple of hours the United States announcing that it’s actually going to freeze aid or support to Ukraine. Could I get both of your response to that? Let’s start with you, Paul.
Scarr:
Well, again, that’s a matter for the United States government, and again, I think we should focus on what Australia’s position is. And I attended a campaign rally on the third anniversary of the invasion of Ukraine. There were representatives, again, from all levels of government, both major political parties in Australia, and we’re on the same page in terms of continuing to provide our support to the people of Ukraine. And that’s the way it should be.
Caisley:
I was watching Donald Trump’s press conference in the early hours of this morning, and in it, he said that Volodymyr Zelenskyy needs to show more appreciation. We then have seen these reports that aid will be paused until Volodymyr Zelenskyy demonstrates a good faith commitment to peace.
How does this at all, or if at all, Andrew, change the security equation for Australia?
Leigh:
Well, you’ve seen in London a range of European powers stepping in and taking important steps towards peace. It is really important that we see peace in Ukraine. This is a war started by Russian aggression. Australia has stood steadfastly with the people of Ukraine.
I joined with a range of parliamentarians who met with the Ukrainian Ambassador to Australia during the most recent parliamentary sitting to again show the solidarity of Australians for Ukraine.
We’ve got the Bushmasters there, the Abrams tanks. We have been a strong supporter of the people of Ukraine, as is appropriate for a fellow democracy seeing the brutality that has been waged on the people of Ukraine through an utterly unprovoked war started by Russia.
Caisley:
There’s bipartisanship when it comes to support for Ukraine, but we have seen a point of difference emerging between Peter Dutton and Anthony Albanese when it comes to boots on the ground or potential peacekeeping missions. The Prime Minister today not ruling out sending troops over there; this is in contrast to the Opposition Leader.
Paul, on the politics of this, is Labor outmanoeuvring the Coalition here on an issue that the Coalition usually feels pretty comfortable in?
Scarr:
I don’t believe so. And I think the Coalition was in government when Russia launched its illegal invasion of Ukraine, and we were at the forefront in terms of an appropriate policy response to that, including providing humanitarian places for refugees from Ukraine to Queensland, many of whom I met shortly after their first arrival.
In terms of so‑called boots on the ground, I think the point Peter Dutton has made, and I think he’s correct, the onus should really be on the Europeans in terms of providing boots on the ground as peacekeepers, and they’ve got the capacity to do that. Australia has its own obligations in the Asia‑Pacific region and from my perspective, given the Europeans have the capacity and we have our own obligations in our own region, I think that’s where our focus should be.
Caisley:
Okay. Andrew, I just wanted to get a sense from you from the government’s perspective. So, this openness, I guess, to having boots on the ground is a shift or 180 from the Prime Minister’s office position yesterday. They provided the ABC with a statement saying the deployment of troops wasn’t under consideration. Today, there has been a shift in that view. What has, I guess, prompted that change?
Leigh:
Well, Olivia, I think we probably don’t want to get ahead of ourselves in this. The Prime Minister has simply said that Australia would consider such a request if it was to come through.
Paul’s quite right that the primary role is going to be played here by the Europeans, as it has been throughout this terrible conflict.
Caisley:
Do you think, Paul, that it’s even possible to get out from under the US security umbrella, given how close we are as allies with the United States? Is it something that should be considered given the, I guess, particularly febrile environment in the Oval Office right now?
Scarr:
Well, the United States is one of our closest allies and our most important ally, and I think that will continue for decades and decades to come. And the historical links between the 2 countries and, more recently, developments such as AUKUS just demonstrate the continuity of that relationship. And I just don’t see any change in that relationship, either in the short term, medium term, or even the long term.
Caisley:
Andrew, the Coalition today say they want to stop public servants from working from home. The Independent Senator David Pocock has described this as a culture war distraction. What’s your response to that?
Leigh:
Well, another day, another attack on the public service from Peter Dutton. First, he’s saying that we should fire one in five public servants and go back to the days of Robodebt and excessive waiting times. Now he’s suggesting that the kind of modern working arrangements that big Australian corporations extend to their workers shouldn’t exist in the public service.
What that would mean is that women with caring responsibilities, people with disabilities, would be fired in droves from the public service, and the Australian public would lose out from having less capable people working in the public service.
Just to take one example, the wait time for a parental leave application to be processed when we came to office was 31 days. We’ve got that down to 3 days. We had a backlog of 42,000 veterans claims, and we’ve dealt with 97 per cent of that backlog.
You can’t fire one in five public servants without dramatically worsening the public services in Australia and going back to Robodebt and long wait times.
Caisley:
Paul, I’ll give you an opportunity to defend the Coalition policy. Why is this a good idea to crack down on public servants working from home?
Scarr:
I think we’ve seen across the whole economy, both private sector and the public sector, dealing with this phenomenon that during the COVID‑19 pandemic, more and more people were working from home, and there were reasons for that. But there’s been a slow return back to the workplace, and a lot of the private sector businesses I speak to talk about the concern they’ve had in terms of collaboration in the office, in terms of communication, in terms of productivity.
And I think the obvious point is being made that when you’ve got people working together in the workplace, collaborating, having those hundreds of interactions you have every single day in a workplace, you’re more productive and quite often, you achieve better results.
So, the other thing to note is all existing agreements and arrangements will be respected. The simple policy point is if you are going to have a working from home policy, it needs to suit the individual, but it also needs to suit the workplace, and that means people need to work collaboratively together and adopt a common‑sense approach.
Caisley:
Just on that, though, Paul, can you give me a sense, is this something that’s being brought up with you in your electorate, is this a concern that’s been raised with you by your constituents?
Scarr:
I think the concern about the work from home phenomenon has been raised with me ever since we started coming out of the COVID‑19 pandemic. And just to give you one example, in many of the professional services firms, when I was a young lawyer I’d attend the workplace and you’d have the benefit of that interaction with mentors, with leaders, get all that guidance you got on an ad hoc basis, and a lot of young workers, new employees, have missed out on that because of this increase in working from home.
So, I think this isn’t an issue to be simplified. I note Andrew’s political spin on it, but there are real issues here in terms of how our workplaces function and how they can be the most productive in terms of what they’re doing.
Leigh:
Olivia, if I can just come back on that.
Caisley:
Yes, please.
Leigh:
I mean, you can either have the position that you want to have a reasonable discussion in respect of workplace arrangements, or you can have the announcement that the Coalition made today that all public servants are coming back into the office.
Either Paul is rejecting the policy that Jane Hume put forward, or else he is supporting that, and that would immediately mean that a whole lot of people would lose their jobs who have disabilities and caring responsibilities.
The fact is the Coalition want to play these kind of ideological games. They want to pretend that public servants are all in Canberra. Two‑thirds of our public servants are outside Canberra, and tens of thousands are working in the region.
Public servants are out there processing tax returns, dealing with cyber security, keeping Australians safe from terrorist threats, dealing with biosecurity challenges. You simply cannot manage a 21st‑century Australia by firing one in five public servants, as the ideologically driven Dutton Opposition would do.
Caisley:
So, Paul, maybe if I just go back to you quickly there. I mean, clearly, the public service is in the Coalition’s sights if they do form government. Ultimately, we saw Peter Dutton just a couple of weeks ago on making that Medicare announcement that ultimately he’ll help fund that by, I guess, cutting public servant jobs.
Scarr:
Well, I just want to come back to some of the points which Andrew made, and I think it’s really important to note that people need to consider what my good friend Jane Hume said in its totality. And in its totality, it referred to the fact that existing working arrangements will of course be respected, will of course be respected. And that’s the way it should be.
But in terms of moving forward, you need to have work from home arrangements – and it doesn’t matter if you’re the private sector or the public sector – which are in the best interests of both the employer, in this case the public service, the department, and also the employee.
So, I think what we’re seeing from Labor is a really disappointing scare campaign. A lot of businesses, a lot of workplaces across the world have struggled with this working from home phenomenon which broke out during the COVID‑19 pandemic, or certainly accelerated, and we’re now trying to achieve more balance.
Caisley:
Look, we do have some breaking news now. China will impose retaliatory additional tariffs of 10 to 15 per cent on certain US agricultural imports from March 10. That’s according to a statement from the Chinese Finance Ministry. These goods will include soy beans, pork, beef, fruits, vegetables and dairy products and those duties to kick in next week by the looks of things. I know this is just happening now, but Paul, do you have a response to that?
Scarr:
Well, I’d just say from an Australian perspective that tariffs, trade barriers are simply not in Australia’s best interests as a general principle. We are a trading nation. We depend upon trade. And free and open trade is so important to Australia’s economy.
So, it’s up to the Chinese government what its policy is, but from Australia’s perspective, looking at Australia’s perspective, we are a trading nation. And tariffs and other trade barriers are not in our best interests no matter who applies them.
Caisley:
I mean, and Andrew, I’d love your thoughts on this too. At the moment, Australia’s waiting to see if we’ll be slapped with 25 per cent tariffs on steel and aluminium. Now we’re hearing that China is slapping its own tariffs, retaliatory ones on the US. Do you have a view on this?
Leigh:
Well, economists disagree about a range of issues, but one thing on which there’s near universal consensus is on the benefits of open markets. Paul’s dead right on tariffs. A trade war doesn’t have any winners. Australia has been benefitted from open markets and from our engagement with the rest of the world.
We’re just 0.3 per cent of the world’s population, a small share of the world’s economy, and trade allows us to specialise in what we do best and enjoy higher living standards than if we were cut off from the rest of the world.
So, we’ll continue to argue for trade liberalisation, to work with through multilateral organisations for an open trading system, and to engage with like‑minded partners in order to spread the benefits of open markets, which have been such a key driver of prosperity over recent decades.
Caisley:
Andrew, Paul, thank you so much for your time this afternoon.
Leigh:
Thanks, Olivia. Thanks, Paul.
Caisley:
I note that date, the 10th of March, probably no coincidence there because that is when the US tariffs on China are due to take place as well.
MIL OSI News –