SPEERS:
Good morning and welcome to the program, I'm David Speers. Federal Police have this morning confirmed they are not going to investigate any role played by the Prime Minister's office in sparking angry protests on Australia Day by activists from the Aboriginal Tent Embassy. Some relief there for the Gillard Government but the damage has been done by this whole affair. The fact that one of the Prime Minister's media advisers has been forced to resign means this has left accusations flying, particularly from the Coalition, that there is grubbiness at the heart of this Gillard Government.
Surprisingly, the first Galaxy opinion poll of the year, out today in News Limited papers, shows some improvement for Labor over the summer break. They've gone up in their primary vote, five points to 34 per cent, one of the best results they've had in a long time. And after preferences they have closed the gap on the Coalition to just an eight point margin, now trailing 56 to 44 per cent. That would still see Labor wiped out at an election if it were to be held today, but it is an improvement nonetheless.
But the bad news for Julia Gillard is on the leadership front. She stills trails Kevin Rudd by a significant margin when it comes to who voters want to see in the Labor leadership – 30 per cent support to 52 per cent for Kevin Rudd.
Joining us this morning is Labor's David Bradbury and the Coalition's Steve Ciobo. Thank you both for joining us.
David Bradbury, first to you. Can you go back to Kevin Rudd based on those sorts of figures?
BRADBURY:
Oh look, I'm not going to engage in that sort of speculation David, but I do welcome the figures that have been announced in the Galaxy poll today because I think significantly what they do show is that the Government is gaining some traction and the increase in the primary vote is something that should not be underestimated.
I know the discussions we were having just some months ago about our primary vote being back in the mid-20s. We're a long way from being where we need to be, but we've always said that this is a Government that has a very strong reform agenda. We're taking some hard decisions and the Prime Minister is at the forefront of those hard decisions, but this is a very encouraging result in terms of the primary vote. I think we need to –
SPEERS:
So you're taking encouragement from the primary vote but you're ignoring the message from voters on the leadership?
BRADBURY:
Oh, look I'm not going to engage in that sort of speculation. The Caucus is very much –
SPEERS:
I'm not asking you to speculate David, I'm asking you if it matters or not, this stark finding of unpopularity for Julia Gillard.
BRADBURY:
Well that's not the way I read the Galaxy poll. I think what it does show is that when you're a Government and when you're a Prime Minister taking hard decisions as we have done, some of the big challenges that have needed to be confronted to strengthen the Australian economy, and we've seen how the Australian economy is holding up compared to some of those other economies across the world. When you take those hard decisions, that's not always popular, but what I think we're seeing with the increase in the primary vote is the grudging respect that comes from taking those hard decisions and demonstrating the sort of leadership that this country requires.
SPEERS:
Do you think that you'd get an even better boost, though, if you did go back to Kevin Rudd? What's so wrong, what's so bad about going back to him?
BRADBURY:
Look, we're not engaging in that sort of hypothetical discussion. The Caucus, the Party, is united behind the Prime Minister. She has taken some hard decisions and I think that we are starting to see some of the dividend that comes from consistent, strong leadership, and that is the story that I think has yet to be properly told out of this Galaxy poll.
SPEERS:
Steve Ciobo, are you worried about the shift there? There is an increase for Labor. They're still a long way behind the Coalition, but an increase nonetheless.
CIOBO:
David, I'm actually still coughing up a little bit of my breakfast cereal after hearing David describe Julia Gillard as consistent and strong. The reality is, what we've seen here David is this is a Government that is absolutely, to the very core, to the top office of the land, the Prime Minister's office, completely obsessed with political games, with trying to make sure they do whatever it takes to stay in power. You know David, what is extraordinary, and I'm disappointed if the AFP have ruled out having an investigation, is that we have, certainly one of the senior media people in the Prime Minister's office, but anyone who thinks this was confined to only one person in the Prime Minister's office really doesn't understand how the Prime Minister's office functions. The reality is the decision to leak information about the Opposition Leader, the decision to spin and verbal the Opposition Leader, to basically incite the kinds of protests we saw would have been a team decision, and that's why the Coalition is saying the Prime Minister has questions to answer –
BRADBURY:
And what are you basing that on? That is an outrageous slur.
SPEERS:
Steve Ciobo, what evidence is there to suggest that this was more than just Tony Hodges acting on his own?
CIOBO:
The reason is, because David, Prime Ministers' offices don't work where people are silos where people make one little decision and everyone does their own little thing. These are collective decisions. This is the most important office in the land and we have at the epicentre of that office one of the media officers who has now stood aside. So I can absolutely know with confidence, based on having observed leaders' offices over a decade now that this would have been a team decision made by several people and I think that the Prime Minister's staff –
SPEERS:
But isn't it the role of the media adviser to pick out something the other bloke says, in this case the Opposition Leader, and try and make that an embarrassment for the other side – that's how it works.
CIOBO:
Sure, but it's also, as you know David, a decision that's taken by a team. People don't just unilaterally make these decisions. People make these decisions as part of a framework about what the Prime Minister's office is going to press – what they would call 'pressing the advantage' and that's the reason why it needs to be investigated.
SPEERS:
That's true isn't it David Bradbury, this is a strategy decision on what to make the story of the day. Clearly there was a decision here that they wanted to take advantage of what Tony Abbott had said.
BRADBURY:
What a load of rubbish. With the greatest of respect David, what a load of rubbish we've just heard from Steve Ciobo. He is speculating upon what is his view. His view. Not one ounce of evidence to support that view, and in fact –
CIOBO:
Have an investigation, let's bring out the evidence, that's the whole point.
BRADBURY:
Well let me address the question of having an investigation. Frankly it is not appropriate for governments to be trying to determine the policy of police when it comes to investigating matters. The AFP have said they have undertaken preliminary inquiries and they have determined that there is no criminality. There is nothing here to be further investigated. Now, I'd understand –
SPEERS:
But does it surprise you, David Bradbury, that it would have been just Tony Hodges acting on his own here, that he wouldn't have consulted anyone about pushing these comments of Tony Abbott's along and telling third parties?
BRADBURY:
No, it doesn't surprise me, and if anyone is suggesting it does and they've got an allegation to make then they should make it. But the allegation should not be based upon –
CIOBO:
Happy to make the allegation.
BRADBURY:
– spurious notions of, 'my experience of how Prime Ministers' offices work', because frankly there is no evidence, not one ounce of evidence that there is anything untoward that extends beyond an over-zealous and inappropriate set of actions by one particular staff member.
SPEERS:
But what did you think, David Bradbury, when you heard this call had been made by Tony Hodges, I mean, did you slap your forehead and think, 'Here we go again'? What was your reaction as a member of this Government hearing that news?
BRADBURY:
Look, I'm not a forehead slapper in any occasion, but what I would say is that this is an unfortunate incident and I feel deeply disturbed that the Prime Minister –
SPEERS:
That's a very calm response, David Bradbury, if I might say.
BRADBURY:
I feel deeply disturbed that the Prime Minister, having initiated these award medals for some of the heroes of our community, and I know how personal her connection and her attachment to those awards has been because she initiated them. And in the spirit of bipartisanship, she invited Tony Abbott to participate to give those individuals the due recognition that they deserve. So I was deeply disappointed that an event of that sort had been disrupted by these activities and to the extent that there was any involvement at all by anyone on our side of politics I was disappointed, but the bottom line –
SPEERS:
Steve Ciobo, let's just rewind to what Tony Abbott actually said on the day. The Greens say he still has some questions to answer here. He was asked specifically, 'Do you still think the Tent Embassy is relevant or should it move?' He then spoke about how he can understand why it was established; that a lot has changed for the better since then; he talked about the apology, constitutional recognition; but then said, 'I think a lot's changed since then, I think it is probably time to move on from that.' What did he mean?
CIOBO:
Well, you'd obviously have to ask Tony directly, but I've read and seen his comments in full, David, and I don't think there's any person in this country who can take offence at what Tony said. What Tony turned around and said was that there'd been a lot of progress made in the area, there's still more to be done, he praised Kevin Rudd and the Labor Party for the apology – you know, the Labor Party likes to make out like it's the Coalition that always says no – he heaped praise on the former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd for his initiative and said we need to move on on that basis. Now that was then, of course, changed deliberately, verballed deliberately, by the Prime Minister's office –
BRADBURY:
Well that's just not true.
CIOBO:
– by staff from the Prime Minister's office.
SPEERS:
Steve Ciobo, it may well have been verballed by some at the rally and beaten up into suggesting that Tony Abbott wanted to tear down [inaudible] the Tent Embassy, but should it move? Should the Tent Embassy move? He didn't talk about it being time to move on from that whole issue, or the issues around indigenous rights, I suppose, from 40 years ago but could he have been a bit clearer here? Was there room for ambiguity?
CIOBO:
You know, David, I think we're putting the cart in front of the horse. I mean let's not lose sight of the big picture here. There are a whole bunch of issues that he raised, talking about a Labor initiative and praising it; talking about the great reforms that have been made over the past several decades; I think that it's, frankly, a bit of an exercise in navel gazing to suggest that's what the focus should be on. The focus here is about praise that was given and the consequences that arose when you had, from the highest office in the land, someone who deliberately and mischievously turned words around. Whether it was Mr Hodges –
BRADBURY:
That is not true. There's no evidence to suggest that.
CIOBO:
– Hodges or Ms Sattler. What we know is that it was either David (sic) Hodges or Kim Sattler. Now I hear David saying in the background, 'There's no evidence, there's no evidence'. Well you know what? I think we should get evidence out in the open. This is a Government that said it was all about transparency and letting the sun shine in, well let's do that. When we have senior members of the Prime Minister's office deliberately potentially changing words –
BRADBURY:
Deliberately potentially? Are you aware of the oxymoron of what you just said?
CIOBO:
[inaudible]
SPEERS:
Alright, let's wrap this topic up. David Bradbury, finally a question to you. Do you feel any sympathy for Tony Abbott over what happened here?
BRADBURY:
I feel no sympathy for the sort of smear campaign that Tony Abbott has conducted. Now he made some comments and the attempt here has been to shift the attention to the conversations that Mr Hodges may have had with other individuals. The reality is that Mr Hodges, what he did was inappropriate, it was unauthorised, it was unacceptable. But at the end of the day, the information that he passed on were comments that Tony Abbott had publicly made, and the whereabouts of Tony Abbott which was publicly-available information as well. Now, Tony Abbott, who, I think the footage I saw in the evening when the Prime Minister, I thought very graciously, showed some considerable concern for Mr Abbot's welfare, ensured that he was able to alight from the situation with the same security protection that she had, ever since that moment we've had nothing but, not only ingratitude from Mr Abbott, but it only took a moment for him to get back onto his grubby bandwagon and try and drum this up into some issue he could beat up for his own political advantage.
SPEERS:
But David Bradbury, the whole thing wouldn't have happened, arguably had someone from the Prime Minister's office not made this call.
BRADBURY:
No, that is a ridiculous thing to say. Tony Abbott's comments were made. That is a fact.
CIOBO:
You're out of touch David.
BRADBURY:
Those comments were made publicly and that information was available to those who would choose to respond in whatever way. Now at the end of the day –
SPEERS:
But they were whipped up by misinterpretation.
BRADBURY:
No, they were not.
SPEERS:
[Inaudible]
CIOBO:
[Inaudible]
BRADBURY:
They were not whipped up by anything that Mr Hodges said and that has been verified by Ms Sattler.
SPEERS:
No, but they were whipped up by somebody energising those at the rally to target Tony Abbott.
BRADBURY:
Well, David I saw you reporting on the matter on the evening of the event and you were saying you thought these were insensitive comments. Look, everybody has a view on whether there was any whipping up going on but the point remains: comments were made. Some people out there will agree with them, some will disagree with them. Under no circumstances should anyone condone the sort of behaviour that followed. Now to try and suggest, though, that this would not have happened but for the intervention of Mr Hodges is just plain wrong. The comments were made independently of anything he did.
CIOBO:
Why did he resign if he did nothing wrong?
BRADBURY:
He resigned because what he did was unauthorised and unacceptable. The reason why it was particularly unacceptable was because on a bipartisan day, Australia Day, at a bipartisan event, his actions contributed in some way – they were not causal, they were not causal – but his actions contributed in a way that took away from the importance and dignity of that event.
SPEERS:
We've got to move on, but Steve Ciobo, a final point on this. In relation to those comments that Tony Abbott made, they were interpreted by the media – and this is the Sydney Morning Herald, News Limited, the ABC and here on Sky News as Tony Abbott being at least ambiguous about the Tent Embassy when he was asked directly.
CIOBO:
There was no way he was ambiguous. He could not be more clear. He said on numerous occasions afterwards that was not –
SPEERS:
Yeah, the next day, I'm talking about on the day, Steve Ciobo, I'm talking about on the day, not the next day, on the day he was asked whether the Tent Embassy should move on.
CIOBO:
No fair-minded person could read what he said and interpret it that way and that's the reason why Tony Hodges resigned.
BRADBURY:
A minute ago you said you'd have to ask Mr Abbott what he meant by those comments. Just a moment ago, you indicated that there was sufficient uncertainty around what Mr Abbott had said, now you're trying to say it was crystal clear?
CIOBO:
David, you're sounding ridiculous.
SPEERS:
Gentlemen, we are going to have to move on. This is clearly a hot topic of debate and will continue, but after the break I do want to shift to, well, another delicate issue: asylum seekers. Stay with use.
[BREAK]
SPEERS:
Welcome back to the program, we're joined by Labor's David Bradbury and the Coalition's Steve Ciobo. I want to turn to asylum seekers. It's no news to anyone that most asylum seekers that turn up to Australian shores don't have passports or identity documents. The Australian newspaper today, though, points out the extent to which this is a problem – 3237 asylum seekers who arrived. How many didn't have passports? 3200, only 37 of them did.
Now, Steve Ciobo the Coalition's saying it wants to have a bias against granting refugee status to anyone who doesn't have a passport. How are you going to enforce that? How will it work in practice?
CIOBO:
Well David, the key point is, I'll just pull you up on one aspect to highlight it, that 3237 people, of which 3200 didn't have passports, were people who had actually travelled through Indonesia to get to Australia. That's really important –
SPEERS:
So they would've had a passport at that stage?
CIOBO:
Precisely. This is a really valuable point because what we know is that 3200 people out of 3237 travelled with identity documents to Indonesia and then destroyed them en route to Australia. They don't have them when they arrive in Australia and the reason is because they know that ever since August 2008 when Labor changed our border protection laws and since then we've had 14,000 people arrive by boat, ever since Labor changed those laws there is now an ability for them when they have destroyed their documents to have a better chance to claim they are refugees –
SPEERS:
So how are you going to fix this? What would you do about this particular issue of encouraging people to keep their documents?
CIOBO:
Our starting point is to say if they have destroyed their documents then we think there should be a presumption that it's going to be more difficult for them to achieve refugee status. So in other words, all we are saying is that people who are genuine refugees who are appealing to the good nature of the Australian Government and the Australian people, saying we need refugee status, well they should be coming with their identity documents because that gives them maximum opportunity to demonstrate their bona fides.
SPEERS:
In practice, if you don't have a passport, what happens? You would be sent back to your country of origin?
CIOBO:
No, there needs to be, the Department undertakes, of course, a review, tries to obtain the history of that person, ASIO does security checks and there's a whole range of different activities the Department and others undertake to work out the bona fides of the person.
SPEERS:
But they do that already, so what's going to change?
CIOBO:
The presumption. So we're going to reverse the presumption. And this is the key point, see if Labor hadn't changed the laws back in 2008 allowing 14,000 people to come streaming in through our pourous borders they would have a situation where this wasn't taking place because there would be orderly refugees and they would be applying through the UNHCR. That of course is always the preferred pathway when it comes to assessing refugee status.
SPEERS:
David Bradbury, what's wrong with that idea of having a presumption against granting refugee status if you don't have documents?
BRADBURY:
Well, I think our position has always been consistent with the convention and the requirements as a signatory to the convention that we have. Look I don't think it's helpful when we have people discard important documentation that can allow Australian officials to determine the true picture in relation to those making applications for refugee status. But equally, each and every application is considered on its merits. Now I think the natural consequence of people arriving without that documentation is that that process becomes more prolonged than it normally would be, so to some extent there is a disadvantage that automatically flows from those that would be willing to discard their documentation.
SPEERS:
But they're doing it for a reason aren't they? They're doing because they believe there is an advantage in not having documents therefore being able to make claims about a history of persecution that can't easily be tested.
BRADBURY:
Well, and that's based on what? I'd be really interested to have a look at the figures in terms of processing time and length of processing that relates to those that don't have documentation because I have to say, in my experience, in relation to particular cases that I may have needed to have made representations in relation to constituents in my electorate or those that have been brought to me, quite often one of the biggest issues is the length of time it takes to process these matters, particularly where there is an absence of documentation. So if the suggestion here is that a lack of documentation is enhancing people's chances of making out a claim for refugee status, then I'd like to see what that's based upon because nothing in the report that I saw today or anything that Steve has said would give me any indication that that's the case. And can I also make one other point –
CIOBO:
[Inaudible]
SPEERS:
We're going to have to wrap it up there I'm afraid guys because we are right out of time. David Bradbury just five seconds.
BRADBURY:
I was just going to conclude by saying let's not take into account then the difficulty you're obviously going to have with trying to enforce such a proposition because how do you know who has discarded their documentation?
SPEERS:
Okay, we'll have to wrap it up there.