Patricia Karvelas:
Now for the government’s view. Andrew Leigh is the Assistant Minister for Productivity, Competition, Charities and Treasury and joins me now. Andrew Leigh, welcome.
Andrew Leigh:
Thanks Patricia, great to be with you.
Karvelas:
Now, you know, just to cover off on that perspective – Save the Children are very concerned about the Coalition’s proposal. The Attorney General, Michelle Rowland has not closed the door on the Coalition’s proposal. Do you think it’s a bad idea?
Leigh:
We’ve certainly got concerns about its constitutionality. But I would say that in the case of this cohort, they made an appalling mistake in choosing to travel to Syria. To support ISIS was to support one of the most appallingly barbaric groups in human history, which left behind a litter of enslaved women, murdered children and mass graves. So the government doesn’t want these people back in Australia, but the law requires that if you’re an Australian citizen, you can be granted a passport.
Karvelas:
Okay. So what do you make then of what Mat Tinkler has said there? He says he is concerned about the government’s rhetoric as well as the Opposition’s, that you’re using this harder language and that actually we have an obligation to these children who are Australian children, that it actually will make us safer to have them repatriated here. Can you see that argument Assistant Minister?
Leigh:
Patricia, I’ve got all the respect in the world for Mat. He’s somebody who’s devoted his life towards assisting children. But one important principle for people to bear in mind is that Australian immigration law typically does not separate parents from their children. Children have their parents’ immigration status. And so I don’t think there’s a world in which we are envisaging bringing the children back without the parents. And that then brings you to the issue of culpability that I spoke about before – the decision to go over and fight alongside one of the most brutal terrorist regimes that we’ve known in our lifetimes.
Karvelas:
Okay so you are hardline; these women shouldn’t come here, even though they’re Australian citizens and some of them have been potentially coerced?
Leigh:
Well, we do need to look at those particular issues of coercion. But I know that many members of this cohort, as Mat has said, it’s a diverse cohort. The Home Affairs Minister has made that point as well. But for those who made an active choice, certainly we’re not keen to have them back, but the rules are quite stringent around this. The rules that would allow the Home Affairs Minister not to grant a passport have not been met, according to the evidence that the Home Affairs Minister has heard from ASIO. And so then you’re in the world of a temporary exclusion order. The Minister has issued one of those in relation to one of the women in the cohort.
Karvelas:
Just want to pick you up on – we need to look at the issues of coercion. I mean, that’s the claim being made by Mat Tinkler just now. So, if they’ve been coerced, do they have the right to come back to Australia?
Leigh:
Well, it’s a separate question as to whether people have the right to return to Australia. As an Australian citizen, you have the right to apply for a passport. The conditions for the Home Affairs Minister to refuse that request have not been met. Then there’ll be questions of their moral culpability, and they will be tested. And indeed, there may well be charges laid against some of these individuals when they return to Australia. And of course in that context, the issue of whether they had been coerced would be relevant.
Karvelas:
I want to move to another issue on these US tariffs. Our rate has now increased from 10 per cent to 15 per cent. How worried are you about the impact that’s going to have on our economy?
Leigh:
Australia is a free‑trading nation and as an economist, I’m a passionate believer in free trade. Free trade is simply an expression of the fact that countries can do better when they specialise in their comparative advantage and trade with other nations. Free trade doesn’t just boost incomes, it boosts interconnectedness and makes the world a safer place. Which is why Australia successively has reduced our tariffs and why we haven’t responded with retaliatory tariffs to when countries like China and the United States have put trade bans on our products. And we’ll continue to advocate for zero tariffs on our exports to the US, just as we have zero tariffs on US exports to Australia.
Karvelas:
And are we now, in this week’s lobbying effort by the Trade Minister, working towards getting some kind of guarantee that we can be at the lower rate?
Leigh:
Look, the Trade Minister is out there always arguing for lower rates for Australia. The US President talks about reciprocal tariffs. Given that the rate of tariff that we impose on US exports to Australia is zero, the right reciprocal rate for our exports to the United States would be zero. That’s not just good for Australian exporters, it’s also good for US consumers who benefit when they purchase our great Australian products. Ultimately, tariffs are a tax on consumers buying imported products, and so tariffs are going to end up being paid mostly by American citizens. So it’s very much in the interest of the United States to bring tariffs down. And I hope the US administration will move towards that over the course of the year.
Karvelas:
Just on another issue. Bill Kelty, a former union and key player of course, in the big reforms of the eighties and the nineties of the Keating and Hawke governments has told Parliament that to reform the tax system must be a priority to reduce the growing burden on young people or you’re going to risk pushing them into the arms of extremist movements, which is a very big call. He wants a scaling back of the capital gains tax discount and also a broader reform on tax to deal with intergenerational unfairness. Does he have a point, particularly in relation to the consequences of not reforming the system?
Leigh:
Yeah look, Bill Kelty’s been a serious player in Australian public policy for most of my lifetime and somebody whose views I always listened to seriously. And to flag up the linkages between political outcomes and economic opportunity, I think it is an important contribution that he makes and which echoes comments that people like Thomas Piketty have made over the years. We’ve worked hard in order to reduce the tax burden on Australians, delivering 3 rounds of income tax cuts, increasing income supports, reducing HECS debts for young Australians.
Our government does see the intergenerational issues that are at play here and the importance of building more homes in order to create the opportunity for young Australians to be able to buy a house. I’m super worried about the fall in home ownership we see among young Australians over the course of the last generation. But of course, building homes takes a while, and after 9 years of Coalition inaction, it’s taking a while to get those homes built in order to start putting downward pressure on house prices.
Karvelas:
I have another question which is a little perhaps in another space. But the Trump organisation has now announced that a Trump Tower will be built on the Gold Coast beachfront at Surfers Paradise. It will be Australia’s tallest building. Andrew Leigh, is that a good thing for Australia to have Donald Trump’s Trump organisation build the tallest tower in Australia?
Leigh:
Well, as you know Patricia, Donald Trump came to Australia in the late 1980s to investigate real estate opportunities in Sydney and the Gold Coast. So, this is a long‑term interest of his. The Gold Coast currently has the tallest building in Australia – the Q1 building. And so it would be unsurprising if it was to continue to have the tallest building. Of course, any of those proposals will have to go through the usual state and local planning approvals. You do that for the tallest tower in Australia, just as you do if you’re building a bungalow.
Karvelas:
Okay. Just finally, you just published a new book on ‘The Shortest History of Innovation’. Just a side hustle on top of your other work. Australia isn’t really capitalising on innovation as much as we should. Are there lessons for us?
Leigh:
Patricia, I’ve argued in The Shortest History of Innovation that innovation is more than just a white bloke shouting ‘Eureka’, because an apple falls on his head. It’s about 3 things. It’s about tinkering, teams and trade. Innovation is often about iteration and creating the opportunities in research institutions and universities for more innovation. It’s about teams and the value of diversity and bringing in more ideas. And it’s about the trade in ideas, which is why more open places tend to have more innovation. So, it’s a retelling of the story of innovation to make it more modern and more inclusive.
Karvelas:
Well, it’s nice that you still are publishing, so congratulations on the book. Thank you for joining us.
Leigh:
Thanks Patricia.