Patricia Karvelas:
I want to bring in my political panel for today. Andrew Leigh, the Assistant Minister for Productivity, Competition and Charities. Zali Steggall is the Independent MP for Warringah. Welcome to both of you. Zali Steggall, do you think it’s an equivalent hijacking by extremists on both sides?
Zali Steggall:
No, not at all. We know the march last weekend was a racist march organised by Neo‑Nazis, overtly. There’s no comparison to the hundreds of thousands, millions, I think, when you add up all the different protests. The March for Humanity that are concerned about the purposeful starvation of innocent civilians and children. I attended the Sydney March across the Harbour Bridge and it was overwhelmingly families…
Karvelas:
But there were signs, a couple. I saw the Ayatollah, like there were some extremist elements?
Steggall:
There may have. And I should say the media has overwhelmingly focused on that one sign. I certainly did not see it. And there was an overwhelming amount of people of all cultural backgrounds from our communities, from many communities around Sydney. Because that’s where I was. Overwhelmingly families with children who felt so distressed for humanity that children are being starved to death.
Karvelas:
Do you think there’s an equivalence in the extremism that have hijacked both movements?
Andrew Leigh:
I don’t Patricia and I feel that the event over the weekend wasn’t who we are as a tolerant, multicultural democracy. I was actually really happy to be part of a different event in Sydney yesterday – the Sydney Marathon where we celebrated Ethiopia’s Hailemaryam Kiros, setting the record for the fastest marathon ever run on Australian soil. And there were kind of runners from countries all around the world now that Sydney’s a marathon major. And that’s just another reminder of the strength that multiculturalism delivers to Australia.
Karvelas:
But there is clearly a grievance going on. Was everyone that went to that rally over the weekend a racist? Some of them say they’re just concerned about immigration. What’s your response to that argument?
Steggall:
Look, overwhelmingly what I’ve seen around those protests was that it absolutely had an overtone of racism. These are people who are, I think, misleading in terms of the information they have available to them about the impact of immigration. In fact, Australia is a nation of migrants and in fact, some of the images around some people in those protests attacking First Nations Australians and their sort of presence is even more telling as to the white supremacist aspect of those protests. I think overwhelming. Yes, they were racist, and I think we do have a racism problem in Australia, that is stoked…
Karvelas:
Is it growing?
Steggall:
Growing, it’s hard to say. I think there was a risk of that before the last election. I think that the Australian people overwhelmingly voted against racism, rejected Trump style policies, and I certainly welcome that. But it is concerning some of the rhetoric and sort of the way that is being positioned. And I think our country is an incredibly multicultural, diverse country. We have so much to celebrate. But we still have an anti‑racism framework that has not been acted upon by the government, so I’ll call on that…
Karvelas:
Well, I will ask that. But still on the substance, do you think these protests are economic grievances that people have, or do you think they’re racist in their foundation?
Leigh:
People will have had different views. Certainly, these were rallies that were addressed in some cases by Neo‑Nazis. Australia of course, isn’t a country where racism is a new thing. You think back to the Lambing Flat riots, to the Cronulla riots – there have been these sorts of extreme protests that have happened in the past. One can have a reasonable discussion about migration without demonising immigrants, and I didn’t see that happening on the weekend. Migrants aren’t just mouths to feed, they’re muscles to build and minds to inspire. And if you’re concerned about building more homes, one of the things builders often tell me is they would like to see more trained people brought in to help build homes alongside the work the government’s doing to encourage more construction apprentices.
Karvelas:
Now you answer the racism framework, because it was lobbed, must be responded to. Is there a…
Leigh:
Look, we’re a government that’s strongly engaged in tackling racism. You saw that from Anne Aly in question time today. You see that from our policies celebrating diversity and tolerance, recognising the strength that comes to Australia from being a multicultural democracy. We’ve got a strong Race Discrimination Commissioner in place and dealing with some of these issues that are arising. I think there will always be some level of racism in the country, but we’re working to try and try and deal with that and through a constructive, reasonable way of tackling those grievances.
Karvelas:
Now, Nauru and the deal with Nauru. $400 million, then $70 million a year. We don’t know how long, and in fact, I still don’t know. The Prime Minister, I did put it to him, he said, you’ll find out when both governments put out some detail. He wouldn’t give me detail, but he also said it wasn’t secretive. Are you concerned about the way it’s been announced and the lack of. Well, I don’t feel like I know that much extra right now?
Steggall:
Well, absolutely. There’s concern about a number of issues in this respect. There’s the deal being done with Nauru and whether or not, you know, the population in Nauru will be safe as a result of what’s being agreed to. But also, are we sending people for indefinite detention in another country where we don’t know that they will have any procedural fairness or natural justice in how they will be treated there? Now it’s legitimate to want to keep our community safe from a cohort that are criminals that have committed dangerous crimes.
But what we have now before the Parliament is in fact a bill where the government is seeking to retrospectively set aside requirements for procedural fairness, which are key elements of our natural justice and of our justice system. And that is really concerning. We have to find a better balance and moving the dial on how the cornerstones of our justice system are really concerning. I just seconded a motion by the Member for Curtin to have that legislation referred to the Human Rights Committee, and the government opposed it which I think is really concerning.
Karvelas:
Why won’t the government let there be scrutiny on these issues? I imagine if Scott Morrison had announced this, you know, there would be outrage from Labor, but when the shoe’s on the other foot, you’re like, nothing to see here?
Leigh:
Patricia, I don’t have anything of substance to add to what the Prime Minister said in his interview with you just now.
Karvelas:
But don’t you think there should be scrutiny? As a person who believes, I hope – in democracy and our right to know. Shouldn’t we know?
Leigh:
There will be appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. But as the Prime Minister has said, these are people who don’t have a right to be in Australia. These are people who, in some cases, have committed crimes. This is about keeping the country safe. And when we’re talking about support for multicultural democracy, a part of that is about people knowing they can have confidence in the Albanese government to keep the community safe.
Steggall:
But hang on. The legislation before the Parliament is to set aside requirements for procedural fairness in cases, and in some cases retrospectively. And the concern for many groups is that this could apply to a broader cohort than just the ones that have committed crimes, and it could apply to other visa holders. To me, it brings to mind images of what’s happening in the US with ICE departments that just grab people, deport them, take away, and the whole, ‘oops, I’m sorry, we made a mistake’. That is why procedural fairness and natural justice are so important to make sure administrative errors don’t occur. And we are on a slippery slope. And the government has a bill that does just that before the Parliament now.
Karvelas:
Just finally aged care. It seems that there’s a chorus of kind of, you’re all agreeing with each other. The Opposition, the Greens, Independents. Concern about the home packages being delayed to November. As the Prime Minister said, they’ve been transparent about it starting now in November, and the existing home care packages are still being given out. Is that?...
Steggall:
I don’t think they are being transparent. And there is a real accountability question here. People are actually dying because they are waiting for home care packages. Now, the fact that the legislation commencement has been delayed does not explain why packages could not be rolled out now that deliver the support that is needed for families that are in dire situations. And so yes there is, I guess, agreement across the crossbench and the Opposition that this is unacceptable of this new Minister who has taken on this portfolio. The question is, you know, what sense of urgency does he have in delivering that care for older Australians that are desperately in need of those packages?
Karvelas:
There’s a sense of urgency here. People are waiting. Some of the stories are pretty sad.
Leigh:
Absolutely Patricia. I mean, we’ve just delivered the biggest aged care reforms this century. This is about increasing the number of aged care packages. Over the last 5 years, they’ve gone from about 155,000 to around 300,000…
Karvelas:
Except the delay is a real problem for people.
Leigh:
Certainly, I have spoken to constituents who are frustrated about not being able to be assessed. So, I understand – that concern resonates with me. What people need to know is that this government has put in place historic aged care reforms. We’ve increased the number of home care packages, and we’ll increase them still further when the next tranche starts on the first of November.
Karvelas:
You’ve been a great panel. Thanks for coming in.
Leigh:
Thanks Patricia.