ASHLEIGH GILLON:
Welcome back to AM Agenda. Joining me this morning on our panel of politicians: the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer David Bradbury and from Melbourne the Shadow Small Business Minister Bruce Billson. Good morning to you both. Let's start on these latest Wikileaks this morning. David Bradbury we saw Kevin Rudd laughing off all of these cables from the US Embassy in Canberra. They say he is a control freak, a persistent micro manager, obsessed with managing the media cycle rather than engaging in collaborative decision making. It says he stood up George Bush after aggressively trying to get a meeting with him. Kevin Rudd is laughing it off but it's not really funny is it?
DAVID BRADBURY:
Look, Ashleigh, I obviously haven't seen the cables in question. I've seen some of the reports. I haven't actually had the opportunity to have a good look at the comments the Foreign Minister has made, but the government has been very consistent in our response to the whole Wikileaks issue. We take the view that it's not appropriate for us to provide a running commentary as more and more documents are released, and it is our expectation that that will continue to be the case. But what we would say is that these are very serious matters that go to questions not just on our relationship with various countries and allies that we have, but more generally go to the heart of the extent to which we value the ability of governments to be able to classify documents that they deem to be of a high-level secret nature and that which goes to questions of national interest.
GILLON:
Well the cables do also say that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade had a very low morale, they were kept out of the decision making process; they were out of the loop; they didn't really know what Kevin Rudd was going to do next. Now, he as Foreign Minister is the head of that department, don't these sort of cables and the way that DFAT reacted to him jeopardize the way he can carry out his duties as Foreign Minister?
BRADBURY:
Look, as I said I really don't want to provide a running commentary in relation to the specific details of what is being said to have been a part of these cables. But, I would make the general observation that it is easy for one to pick out bits and pieces from documents that other parties haven't had the opportunity to look at, and to make various generalisations about what that means. And you're just doing that in relation to the impact that might be having on morale within a particular department.
GILLON:
It's a pretty easy link to make
BRADBURY:
Well, there are actually a couple of steps involved in making that connection. And I would simply make the point that if the interest of the media and the public is about the question of morale within a particular department well then let's have a look at that. Lets give people the opportunity to comment frankly rather than picking up on a couple of comments, the context surrounding which we really do not know and do not appreciate, rather than seize upon those comments and try and make broader generalisations. I think that in the end, if we are concerned about having a reasoned and sensible debate about these matters, then we actually have to be a little more responsible in the way in which we access and comment on these matters.
GILLON:
Bruce Billson I'm guessing your going to be happy to give us a running commentary on these leaks, but is it really right for the Opposition to try and get political gain out of these sorts of documents? Of course we saw the AG the other day really hitting out at the way Julie Bishop has been running commentary on this, saying that she is giving dignity to these leaks which perhaps aren't in the national interest.
BRUCE BILLSON:
Well I mean we didn't need Wikileaks to learn that Kevin Rudd is self-obsessed, erratic and doesn't talk to anybody. I mean half the Labor Caucus arrived at that conclusion when they got rid of him. So there's no new real revelation in that.
What is most concerning is its impact on Australia's national interest. A key alliance, a partner recognising that policy being driven more by the media appearance and publicity. This is not good. Where is Australia's national interest in all of this? It's not about conducting foreign affairs in the way that's been characterised in these cables. The Americans and others have pointed to this random announcement about a nuclear disarmament forum and then something else happening about the architecture in our region without Australia or Prime Minister Rudd as he was then talking to anybody. And we've seen Julia Gillard do the same thing with the East Timor Regional Immigration Centre, not talking to anybody, an announcement designed to deal with domestic media concerns and domestic politics. This is no way to run foreign affairs. And as these leaks reveal, there is some very serious matters at hand with international diplomacy and we need competent, thoughtful and very clear guidance from our political leaders about what is in our national interest not this sort of sideshow that's been characterised in the leaks that have been reported today.
GILLON:
Well it does appear that Wikileaks' spokesperson overnight has said that even though Julian Assange is now behind bars, the Wikileaks website is going to continue dishing out more cables so it looks like we will have more to look forward to perhaps later in the week. I do want to get both of your thoughts on the water reforms. Yesterday, David Bradbury, we saw that they really did take a blow when we saw the resignation of the Murray-Darling Basin authority's Mike Taylor. Is the government now considering carefully the criticisms that he made on his way out about the need to reconsider your strategy and also to give more precedence to the environment and the impact of the water act on that?
BRADBURY:
Well look Ashleigh I don't think its news to anyone to appreciate that these are really difficult issues and difficult challenges for us as a Government to deal with, as they would be for Bruce and his colleagues if they were in government, because we are dealing with a range of what can often be conflicting interests that need to be balanced in the long term national interest of the country.
I guess the point that I take from the discussion over the last 24 hours or so, and indeed the broader debate that has surrounded some points of difference between the former chair of the authority and the government, goes to this question of whether or not we are solely focussed on the environmental outcome, or whether or not we seek to optimise what I think is the balanced range of considerations at stake here.
We as a government say the Water Act allows us to balance the interests of not only the environment but also ensuring that we are able to secure stronger communities, and I think we've seen from the range of discussions out there in the community that that's a matter of great interest, and also to take into account questions of food production and ongoing economic viability.
So I think that these are questions where there have been real differences between the position the chair has taken and the view expressed by the Government. In the end, we remain committed to pursuing these reforms. That's not going to be easy, we've seen just how difficult that might be, but we are committed to trying to deliver these outcomes in the long term national interest.
GILLON:
Bruce Billson does the Water Act, which was of course drafted by your colleague Malcolm Turnbull, does this need reworking now, does it need rewriting?
BILLSON:
Well there seems to be agreement between the Coalition and the Government that the Water Act provides for a proper and balanced assessment of the environmental imperatives, the economic and social impacts.
I think that what Mike Taylor's resignation reflects, though, is he must have been tired of being a human shield for the Labor Government. He was the one sent out there to deal with the passionate feelings surrounding this plan. And also, he was the one out there engaging, as David has rightly said, a complex array of interactions of not only the health of our natural systems but those natural systems and their implications and their support for communities and people and the social fabric within the Murray-Darling Basin.
Now, it's not reasonable for the Murray-Darling Basin authority to be effectively the one that governments outsource that broad range of responsibilities to. The government needs to step up, Ministers need to be involved.
I'll give you one example Ashleigh. Under the Coalition's approach there was $10 billion dollars set aside to implement the activities needed to support the plan. $6 billion of that was for investment in infrastructure. That's about making better use of the water that's available to support economic viability, social viability of the communities along the basin whilst restoring the health of the natural system itself. The government has barely spent any of that, its not recognised the need to make better use of the water that is available on a sustainable basis and communities have reacted to this buy-back-water approach from Labor. It will just reduce the amount of water available. They haven't heard that broader whole-of-government discussion about what is needed to support the economies and the communities that rely on healthy natural systems in the basin. That's what's been missing and Mike Taylor has been out there as a human shield protecting the government from that very important part of the debate.
GILLON:
There is a long way to go on this issue and it does look like COAG is going to be meeting in February and the State Premiers will be getting stuck into that very issue. We are out of time, David Bradbury, Bruce Billson thank you both for joining us this morning.