JONES:
Good evening, and welcome to Q&A. I'm Tony Jones. Here to answer your questions tonight, rising Labor star Ed Husic; Greek singing legend and former European MP Nana Mouskouri; Guardian Australia columnist Van Badham; Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer Kelly O'Dwyer; and editor of the Financial Review, Michael Stutchbury. Please welcome our panel. And, remember, if you’ve got a live Twitter question to send us, at @qanda to help us find it amongst the millions of other questions. Well, let's go to straight to our first question from the floor and it's from Lea Vesic.
QUESTIONER 1:
Thank you. Saturday's anti-Islam and opposing anti-racism rallies have further illustrated Australia's boiling pot of emotion towards multiculturalism and the asylum seeker issue. We're not only seeing more frequent bouts of protests and passionate debate, but these are becoming more violent, with the latest scenes of the burning of the Australian flag, scenes that are more synonymous with the American culture than ours. As our society is exposed to more of these events fuelled by cultural tensions and political propaganda, will we become a society that has accepted this level of inappropriate and violent behaviour as a new norm.
JONES:
All right. Let's start with Van Badham, because I just learnt earlier you were at the counter rally in Melbourne?
BADHAM:
I was very proud to be at the counter rally in Melbourne because I have learnt from history that this is not a new phenomenon, that we know that when there are cultural tensions and language of cultural division that opportunistic people exploit them in order to promote their own causes and I’m speaking specifically about Neo-Nazism and fascism, which are horrible words to say in Australia. But we, like any country, has an extremist element. We have an extremist element on the very far right. They are tiny but they’re feeling quite emboldened by a lot of divisive language that’s been used against particularly the Muslim community and in the debate around asylum seekers there has been, unfortunately, a lot of racist commentary and that has given the extreme right, the far right, the confidence to put on a little bit of a public show.
JONES:
Tell me, what was the rally like, from your perspective, because the questioner seems to be saying that both sides were responsible for problematic behaviour, including the flag-burning?
BADHAM:
Well, absolutely. I don't engage in flag-burning and I wouldn't. I attended the counter protest in my capacity as a citizen who is very passionate about multiculturalism and inclusion. I certainly don’t ever, at any point, endorse violence as a means of political engagement. In fact, I was there to put my body in front of neo-Nazis and fascists and to stop the spread of their ideas because what we’ve learnt from history and the incident I always recall is the one in 1936, the Battle of Cable Street, where the Jewish community and the progressive community in London banded together to stop a march of the Oswald Mosley’s Black Shirts through the streets of London and it was their action in 1936 which many people attribute to stopping the spread of organised fascism in Britain, because the fascists were humiliated. Like the cowards they are, they retreated and it was an incredible victory for progressive people and humanity worldwide. So that’s why I was there. I will not stand for fascism and I think we should all be unambiguous in our condemnation of it.
JONES:
I’ll just go back to our questioner. Yeah, Lea, do you buy that? Because, I mean, you seem to be suggesting that both sides were in the wrong in some way, in your question?
QUESTIONER 1:
Not so much that. I think it goes back to the political debate that we're having, or probably that we're not having. The politicians do have the control and the power to subdue a lot of the emotion that's coming out of all of this, but nothing is being done. It's kind of left free for all, so you have the extremists on both sides taking law into their own hands essentially.
JONES:
All right. Let's hear from one of the politicians. Kelly O'Dwyer?
O’DWYER:
Well, look, I this that Australians are very tolerant. I think we live in a very tolerant society and I think that we embrace multiculturalism in this country and I think that's what stands Australia apart from most other countries in the world. We have been able to live in peace and harmony and that is a wonderful thing. I think that there are extreme elements within our community, both on the right and also on the left, and I think that the best way to combat these sorts of repugnant ideas is not necessarily by having a physical confrontation, because I abhor violence. I think the best way to confront these ideas is by challenging them. Challenging people through their ideas rather than through physical confrontation, I think, wins every time.
JONES:
Do you accept that that's what Van Badham was actually doing, challenging racism? That’s how she put it?
O’DWYER:
Well, I don't speak for Van. Van can speak for herself. I mean, I read reports that there were people there who tried to drive out other protesters whether they were on the right or the left of this particular divide and I think, actually, that that is not healthy. I think in a society you should actually attack people’s ideas. You shouldn’t attack people. I think that that is the most persuasive way to kill off ideas that are repugnant to all of us.
BADHAM:
I was absolutely there to attack ideas. I was there to take a stand against fascism.
JONES:
Did you see any violence?
BADHAM:
Did I see any violence? Well, where I was standing in the crowd, reports reached me of fascists throwing rocks. I had my own placard ripped up by one of the fascists who was in attendance. I mean, I was surrounded by people who had swastikas on their necks. That’s pretty unambiguous in terms of the statement they are making. In the promotion of that reclaim Australia rally, the organisers had to ask their followers politely to not wear their Nazi memorabilia in public. If you are an organiser of a demonstration and you have to make that call, who are you representing? You cannot reason with people who have swastikas tattooed on the backs of their heads. Those people abrogated reason a long time ago. What you can do is shut them down. What you can do is organise a large majority of people. We outnumbered them 10/1 in Melbourne and thank God we did, because the worst we could do is pretend that those people have legitimacy, pretend they have a right to be bigots, pretend that fascism is somehow a legitimate contribution to Australian politician discourse. It is not.
JONES:
Sorry to interrupt. Let’s hear from the other politician on the panel, Ed Husic. What do you make of, first of all, the question that was asked there.
HUSIC:
I think one of the things that I drew out of the question itself is that not only is there a need for us to be able to address the ideas as Kelly was saying, but it's important to send out the signal from, regardless of political party, that the best thing that we've got going for us is that the middle isn't squeezed out by the edges, that is that the edges of this debate that want to feed off fear, that they not be given the opportunity, to allow people in the middle. I actually think the biggest danger for us is not so much the fear itself, it’s doubt, starting to doubt people that you’re with, doubt the authenticity or their commitment their country or their love of their country and to make people think twice: "Should I be dealing with this person? The way I used to deal with them, was it right?” And we need to have people across the political spectrum say that this country has been built off the back of, you know, if you look, seven million migrants coming in post World War II. We are a success story on the national and international stage and the reason we've got that way is because we work together and we need to keep finding ways to do that.
JONES:
Ed, did you regard that series of rallies - I think there was 16 planned around the country and they were against Islamification of the country and sharia law - did you regard these rallies as anti-Islam?
HUSIC:
Look, let me...
JONES:
As a Muslim yourself?
HUSIC:
Let me put it to you this way: I put in as much stock in Reclaim Australia speaking up for the broad public as I do extremists misrepresenting my faith. You know, Reclaim Australia does not represent the great things that I see in the broader community and the way in which people get on and I don't think we should let them define the way in which we behave with each other, the way that we get on with each other. And while there were a number of people there that wanted to, you know, as seen before, you know, raise the straw man of different issues from sharia law to halal taxes and the like, you know, they are just trying to find a platform, trying to find a way to get fear to feed off fear and we shouldn't give them that platform.
JONES:
Do you regard them as racist?
HUSIC:
Well, look, people can make that call. I am just not prepared to give them any more platform than they deserve frankly because quite often we let people that are on the extreme cloud the way in which the bulk of people live their lives, and the way the bulk of Australians live their lives is they want it get on with each other. They just want to get through the day, get through the week, raise their children, have their families, get on in the broader community and not be defined by, like I said, some narks on either side of the political spectrum.
JONES:
Nana Mouskouri, listening to this, you’d be a bit familiar with the idea of anti-Muslim rallies and even political parties?
MOUSKOURI:
Yes. Yes. I mean, in Europe it’s much more bigger lately. It became a very, very important problem but, you see, there have been faults at the beginning, like I said for years, because there were a lot and they haven't tried really to cope and understand and get together each one and be able to find solutions because people coming into a country, they have to have a certain discipline. At the same time as they help them to be in the country, and I think this is what is paying today. You know, they pay the fault and lately there have been extremely profound problems, really very tragic problems, and now it's becoming bigger and bigger. But I hope that it has to be with political, like you say, approach, and only with dialogue I think you cannot really go down in a fight. This is what it should be avoid. I think you have to be an understanding in between, because there is a truth for both sides.
JONES:
Do you think...
MOUSKOURI:
Of course there are some...
JONES:
Sorry to interrupt. Go ahead.
MOUSKOURI:
Some people, the other side, maybe is more exigent. How do you say? More demanding, but they all have something right. You cannot condemn. Of course, the crime is very hard, yes.
JONES:
Can you actually reason with, for example, in Greece you have a political party called Golden Dawn?
MOUSKOURI:
Yes. Yes.
JONES:
Openly the leader describes himself as racist.
MOUSKOURI:
Yes.
JONES:
Can you reason with a political party like that, I wonder?
MOUSKOURI:
No, I cannot, but, you know, the problem is that people have voted and they are in the Parliament. So, they have to find a reason why this was created and maybe we are - in Greece also we have a responsibility to ignore maybe the social situation sometimes and so that the people come to have help from a party like this and it is voters and they are really in the government.
JONES:
Yes, I think they have 17 seats.
MOUSKOURI:
Not in the government, but in parliament.
JONES:
In the Parliament.
MOUSKOURI:
Yes. Yes. You know, Greece...
JONES:
Does that frighten you, though? Does it frighten you that the Golden Dawn has 17 seats in the parliament?
MOUSKOURI:
Of course. Of course it frightens me because Greece - you know, I'm an old-timer, so I went through the war, the Second World War. I was then a child of four years old, so I lived with the occupation and when they finished, there was a civil war, and then when they finished that civil, when we tried to go further, there was of course - we no kingdom anymore. We became a democracy, after a very hard way, and before that there was also a dictator. So we were trying really to build up Greece from the beginning, because we came out of the war. So our problem, like all problem, the problem for everybody, I think, is to have friends, not to have enemies, and this is what is important, to be friendly with them as well, not to receive them as enemies so and direct them maybe what they should learn, have a discipline when it comes to a country, the foreigners, let's say. Things, I mean, they happen. What can you do? People suffer and they try to find help from somewhere and they give their trust to those who do it.
JONES:
All right. I’m going to just go to Michael. Haven't heard from you yet and you didn't publish your paper this morning, but if you did...
STUTCHBURY:
Online. We're online constantly.
JONES:
Okay. How would you have covered this particular thing, because the headlines that we most saw were the RSL complaining about the flag-burning but we heard a broader and more nuanced story from someone who was at the rally?
STUTCHBURY:
Well, I think, as Kelly and Ed have both said, Australia has got a very successful multicultural society. We don't have the levels of violence that you see elsewhere and there may be, it seems, and apparently there is, as Van says, a tiny neo-Nazi element in society. They want to create a bit of noise. Van and co have managed to establish a group of people far larger to protest against them. That sounds good. You wouldn't want to have violence break out on the streets of Melbourne or any other city, because Australians are very much opposed to bringing any sorts of tensions like that onto Australian soil. But other countries, as even in the Greek Government, as I understand it, far left government, is still partly propped up by one of a small far right party as a member of the coalition which is very anti-immigration. So we don't have anywhere near that level of tension in Australia.
JONES:
Except in the Senate?
STUTCHBURY:
Nothing like that, though.
JONES:
Actually, well, actually our questioner has got her hand up again. We’ll quickly go back to you, perhaps for a comment.
QUESTIONER 1:
Even though we all agree that the behaviour, regardless, you know, what the intention is, is not acceptable, it still is showing that we are slowly going to accept it as a new norm because the people who run the country, the politicians, are taking the sidelines and they're saying, yes, it's not good that it's happening, but there is no proactive action happening to actually stop it from happening in the future.
JONES:
Okay. We’ll take that as a comment because we have got quite a few questions to move onto. The next one is from Max Koslowski.
QUESTIONER 2:
A recent report titled The Forgotten Children detailed 30 incidences of sexual assault against children in detention. How many more basic human rights must be violated before the public sees a genuine change in asylum seeker policy?
JONES:
Kelly O'Dwyer.
O’DWYER:
Certainly we don't accept violence against children, against anybody in detention, particularly sexual violence. It is unacceptable. Unequivocally it is unacceptable and our foremost concern ought to be, Max, with those children. When we first came into Government, we were dealing with a case load legacy of more than 30,000 people who had arrived on shore, who had arrived unauthorised by boat. Around 8,000 children had arrived and around 2,000 children were in detention. Now, that compares to no children in detention under the previous Coalition government because of the policies that we had had in place. The problem at the moment is that we need to reduce the number of children in detention, we need to do that very quickly.
That's what the Government has been setting out to do and we have reduced that number from 2,000 to less than 200, we've reduced it by more than 93%, and we are now dealing with a number of very difficult cases of children who are in detention partly due to the fact that one or both of their parents have had an adverse security assessment made against them, and the parents or one of the parents has decided to keep the whole family together intact, either because they have a genuine desire to keep the family intact or because it is part of a strategy to help get, perhaps in certain circumstances, the father out of detention.
JONES:
Kelly, I'm just going to interrupt you for a moment. Our questioner had his hand back up. I will just go quickly back to you. Go ahead.
QUESTIONER 2:
The main discussion you had there was about Labor's actions. The fact that others may have abused children more in the past does not excuse the actions of the present, particularly what any government may be doing. Can you justify the program that you are running at the moment?
O’DWYER:
Well, no, no, no, and that's the very point that I was making is we are getting children out of detention. It is not acceptable to have children in detention. I don't want children in detention. The Government doesn't want children in detention.
JONES:
Couldn't you just end that overnight by saying no more children in detention and taking them all out of detention?
O’DWYER:
Well, the problem with that...
BADHAM:
Yeah, you could.
O’DWYER:
No, but there is a problem with that. The Labor Party - there is an issue with that and that is if you basically say to people smugglers if you bring your children on that dangerous and perilous journey over sea, you are going to be put into community detention straightaway rather than offshore detention and...
JONES:
But, Kelly, famously - can I just interrupt there because famously there are no more coming, so what you're dealing with now is a legacy group so...
O’DWYER:
And that's because our policies are working, Tony. That's an endorsement of the policies we’ve put in place.
JONES:
But given that those - so, the point is this: given that they've worked and that you're now dealing with a legacy group of people...
O’DWYER:
That’s right and we’re trying to get children out of detention.
JONES:
...who are in long-term detention, could you not simply make a policy of taking all children out of detention tomorrow?
O’DWYER:
Well, we would like to.
JONES:
And, if necessary, their parents?
O’DWYER:
Well, we would like to but part of...
BADHAM:
Then do it.
O’DWYER:
But part of the issue here is that you can't always take children out of detention when the parents have said that they want their children with them in circumstances where there has been an adverse security assessment. This is a complex issue. We want children out of detention. We've reduced the number by more than 93%. As Tony has said, our policies are working. We have not seen children arrive unauthorised by boat and be put in detention in the way that they were being put in detention under the previous government.
JONES:
Okay. Sorry, let’s hear from the other panellists. Van Badham, you wanted to jump in there several times.
BADHAM:
Absolutely. It’s horrifying. Like, we are endorsing, by maintaining the detention centres, the institutionalisation of perfectly innocent people. We are spending $3 billion a year on the incarceration of people who have full legal right - the full legal right - to seek asylum in Australia. $3 billion a year is - I read a report that said that the UNHCR spends that much on trying to find homes for refugees and we are spending that on maintaining these absolute outrageous to humanity indecency, which are the camps. If you want children out of detention, let them out. We know that it's cheaper and more effective and more humane to have people in the community, supported by communities with community resources while their claims are being processed and I actually agree with your colleague Craig Laundy, the Liberal member for Reid, who thinks that the easier way around this solution, the Malcolm Fraser way around this solution, is actually to increase our humanitarian intake so there are no refugees who are being exposed...
O’DWYER:
We have done that. We have actually increased it.
BADHAM:
You have not increased it...
O’DWYER:
No, we have. We’ve increased it.
BADHAM:
...to the same levels of the Gillard Government and you’re certainly not increasing it...
JONES:
Van, Van, I think if you’re going to make a point, you need to hear the answer.
O’DWYER:
I was just going to say we have actually increased the humanitarian intake. In fact, part of the problem was that we had 15,000 people who had arrived unauthorised by boat take up those places that were humanitarian places. So people smugglers determined who was to be given asylum in Australia, as opposed to people who were sitting in offshore detention centres who ought to be given those places. Let's spare a thought for those people who don't have the means to be able to pay a people smuggler to get on a boat to try and have a better life in Australia.
JONES:
Okay. Briefly I’m going to interrupt before I bring the other panellists in. We’ve got a gentleman with his hand up there. Go ahead.
AUDIENCE MEMBER:
I have a debate with Kelly O'Dwyer on this. A couple of months ago your party attacked the Commissioner of Human Rights, Gladys(sic), because she put a report in both about Labor, about the times that Labor Government was keeping children in detention centres, as well as the new government and all that, and then your government turned around and tried to criticise her because she publicised and said that your Government has spent more time keeping children in detention centre and all that than the Labor Government did and all that and then your Government...
JONES:
Okay. All right. Well, I'm sorry, I think we've got your point there. It’s about the point from the Human Rights Commissioner, which was widely criticised by your Government because it had been done over a period of time.
AUDIENCE MEMBER:
And you tried to sack her.
O’DWYER:
Well, we didn't try and sack her.
JONES:
Thank you, sir.
O’DWYER:
Well, we didn’t try and sack her. I mean, she was actually my former law lecturer, so I have actually sat in lectures and listened to Gillian Triggs on many occasions. But let me say this: her report focused on children and that's what we should be focused on. We shouldn't get distracted by all of the other issues. We should be focused on the welfare of children and making sure that we have their best interests at heart.
JONES:
So can I just interrupt. Gillian Triggs' report, you're quite comfortable with it then?
O’DWYER:
Well, look, I don't like hearing reports about children who have been abused. I don't like hearing reports about children were put into detention. She made it very clear they were put in detention under the Labor Party and that was a clear aspect of her report.
JONES:
All right. So is it were you then surprised that your own party roundly criticised her and many people called for her sacking?
O’DWYER:
Well, look, I mean I’ll leave that to other commentators to commentate on things that people have commentated on. What I can say is, from my perspective, I think it's important to focus on the children.
JONES:
Okay. I’m going to go to Ed Husic here. And as you've just heard, there were vastly more children in detention under the Labor Government. So I guess the question for you is, are you ashamed of that?
HUSIC:
Oh, definitely don't want to see people being kept in circumstances and having known people, you know, refugees who have settled in my part of Western Sydney as well, you know, they've had a hard enough time actually in their original country and then to have to go through the extra trauma, you don't want to have to see that happen.
JONES:
So was the policy of detaining thousands of children under the Labor Government wrong?
HUSIC:
And we had sought actually, when Chris Bowen was Immigration Minister, to find ways to actually get children out of detention into community care and having NGOs provide that level of support. Again that was happening in - the vulnerable families in Western Sydney were being relocated. You know, there were a number of things that we tried to do that - you know, Kelly wanted to inject the politics into it in terms of going back to what Labor did. Well, we tried to get a number of things done through the last Parliament, which just didn't go ahead. One of them was, for example, we had a situation where, in trying to block some of our efforts, then opposition Immigration Minister Scott Morrison struck a deal with the Greens to lift the immigration intake to 20,000, which he reneged on promptly when he got into office. And the other thing that he did once he got into office is to shut down on transparency. We had weekly press conferences where you couldn’t find out what was going on and the type of things that actually the questioner was asking about the type of abuse that was occurring and, regardless, it’s a shame on either party that it’s happening.
JONES:
Well, I mean, a lot of that abuse, the sexual abuse of children, happened while Labor was in power.
HUSIC:
Which is - and that is absolutely unacceptable.
JONES:
That seemed to be the point really. You didn’t manage to get the children out of detention.
HUSIC:
No, no, no, and it is absolutely unacceptable but the thing is, too, how do you deal with it if you've got a cloak that covers up transparency and doesn't allow these things to be openly discussed and when someone does look at it--
JONES:
Hang on. Are you talking about your government or their government?
HUSIC:
Well, both. Both. I mean if we have done something wrong or if they have done something wrong, it has to be brought out to light and the point I'm making is that you only do that through transparency. So, and when they had someone, in Gillian Triggs, report on it, they roundly criticised her rather than the situation at hand. And as for the success in terms of what has gone on, I mean, you know, we've had to - we set up - I mean, you know, the Labor Party set up the re-settlement agreement with Papua New Guinea. Anything that we are responsible for and, in terms of any future responsibility for the way in which facilities are managed under the Coalition, they should be equally upfront and prepared to accept accountability but you don't get that out of this Government.
JONES:
Michael Stutchbury?
STUTCHBURY:
Well, clearly, no one wants to see children in detention, it is a horrible thought, but I think it is a very good thing that the numbers of children in detention have definitely peaked and are coming down and that, as well, that the number of children dying at sea and other asylum seekers dying at sea has also ended. So that's a very good thing. I think politically, the Government is on pretty strong ground here and when you had the fact that whatever you think of what the previous government's policies, the Government has stopped the boats, that's what most Australians want to see and I think they will get political reward for that, and when the controversy over the Gillian Triggs Human Rights Commission report came out the other day, that got a lot of air time but the Government has had, you know, virtually no noticeable political downside from that. In fact, the Government's standing has probably increased through that period.
JONES:
Nana, are you surprised to hear that Australia is still...
MOUSKOURI:
I'm surprised for Australia. I didn't know, I just heard it and I think it's really, very, very sad to hear that. I mean, it's - humanity is going away, it disappears, and I think the world needs a little bit more of humanity and, you know, protect the children. They are the future of the world, wherever they come from, whatever is their nationality. So, I mean, the grown-up people as well. - humanity we all need, but the children is something unbearable to believe. I didn’t know that it happens here really. There are problems, of course, with refugees everywhere today. The world has become like this. But let’s put some humanity in the laws really and protect the children.
JONES:
So, briefly, I guess to summarise, you’re saying that there should be no children in detention at all under any circumstances?
MOUSKOURI:
At all. At all. Absolutely. Children, and they are protected. This is why I say UNICEF has done laws and really conventions about the children. And this is the first - the first to believe is to protect the children. It's not possible this way, and also abuse is really the first thing that appears today that happens to everywhere. So they must do as fast as they can. I mean, it's children. You are playing with lives that they are going to build a better world, so give them the chance to do that. It's very important.
JONES:
Okay, there’s a few people with their hands up. We will leave that subject there because we have got quite a few questions on different subjects. The next one is from Jack Christie.
QUESTIONER 3:
Hello. Yasou, Nana.
MOUSKOURI:
Yasou, yes. Yes.
QUESTIONER 3:
As a proud first generation Australian from Greek and Cypriot parents, I would like to thank you for the joy and the pleasure that your show, the Nana Mouskouri Show brought to hundreds of thousands of Australian Greeks. It was such a pleasure, as a young child, to gather around the TV set on a Sunday night and to watch my parents and other parents, the pleasure it brought them to watch your show, to hear Never on Sunday and to watch them stand up and sing and dance was a wonderful feeling. And I would like to ask, what was your experience like to serve in the European Parliament considering, that it was so different from entertainment field that you came from?
MOUSKOURI:
Well, this was a very difficult time for me because Greece is a new country, I must say, not new - it is very old with a big history, but our democracy came late. It is only 40 years old, you know. It’s from the ‘70s. It’s not much more and so people are trying to get together and organise themselves. So I was asked to go because people thought the Greek - my Greek friends thought, like Melina Mercouri was before a great actress and also very good politician and when she died and so they thought this was the opportunity to have Nana, but Nana was not a politician. No, but I did go for the reason that they told me, "You can help your country." And I did and I enjoyed it but I stayed my five years I had to do. I worked hard to learn how to work and then I didn't stay. I didn't want to continue because it is a difference with politics and singers. Singers, we live with music, we give hope, we give love, we try really to make people see a future which I did when I was young, but I cannot commit myself by giving solutions and these solutions the politicians will give. So, I realised that the decisions, excuse me, are very difficult in the Parliament.
JONES:
Can I ask a question?
MOUSKOURI:
Yeah.
JONES:
Did you learn to trust politics and politicians?
MOUSKOURI:
No, no, I didn't. I didn’t. No, I didn't because I realised that when they take the lead, when they are in power, they have to obey certain rules which we don't know. They are not transparent. So they don't keep their promises always, because some they do. I must say it's not completely, but it's very difficult, so I don't trust always, you know, but, yeah, I believe and know that only politicians can give solutions and this is very important: when people vote for somebody, you trust that they are the good ones and this is - I'm not a protester very easily.
JONES:
I’m just going to ask Ed whether that actually causes you to doubt your chosen career, with its invisible rules and let's say it's factions and so on actually controlling what actually goes on?
HUSIC:
I want to get my Smartphone and go Seek.com.au. Yeah, low trust in politicians came as a great shock to me a few moments ago. But I do have to say, you know, you're not going to get, and maybe this is a second-term politician speaking, Kelly may have a different view, I don't know, but I think you do go in with a view, and I represent an area I've grown up in. You want to be able to see politics effect change. You want to see better things happen in your local area but you also want to change things within or, in our respect, in the national Parliament as well, and finding ways in which to - you know, we were talking earlier about, you know, people that wouldn't necessarily see eye to eye. Being able to find the bridge between people is one of the hardest things, and one of the hardest things to is within your own party. There will be decisions that are made that you're not happy with and, you know, raise your voice internally and then you have to go out as part of a group decision and you have to sell it and for me personally, it's one of the most difficult things because I guess I’m very--
JONES:
Selling stuff you don't believe in, that would be difficult.
HUSIC:
Well, I guess, no, by my very nature - by my very nature I want to be able to speak up on the things that mean a lot to me. But if you look at it, within your own political party, there are a lot of different voices that feel the same way, so you have to have the balance between speaking your mind but also working together in a unified way to get things done.
JONES:
All right. I’m just going to give the other politician a chance to respond as well. Kelly, you’re about to bring new life into the world.
HUSIC:
Yeah, don’t contradict me, Kelly.
JONES:
Because you’re sort of low down, probably a lot of people don’t realise that you’re five weeks away from giving birth, but do you think that politics could be reborn in this country, because trust is so low in politicians and the promises they make and break. Is there any way you think that can be repaired?
O’DWYER:
Look, I think it’s really devastating that a lot of people who would potentially consider a life of public service, which is what Ed and I have chosen to do and what Nana chose to do for those five years, I think there would be a lot of people out there who would make the decision not to go into politics by virtue of the fact that it's held in such low regard, and yet I think no matter what your political perspective, most people go into politics because they believe very, very strongly in trying to build the future of their country, trying to shape the direction of their country in a positive way, making it better than what it was before they went in and I believe that those people who go in do that with the strong view that they've got certain values that they represent and that they have something to contribute. Now, we don't always agree and, as Ed said, sometimes you disagree more vehemently with people on your own side of politics than sometimes you do with the people across the aisle.
JONES:
Has that happened recently?
O’DWYER:
Sometimes you do that more vehemently than people across the aisle but, I mean, Ed and I have work together on a committee. We haven't always agreed on everything but we’ve been able to work really constructively together.
HUSIC:
You noticed that.
JONES:
Okay, guys. I’m going to interrupt, because we’ve actually got quite a few questions to get through. I'm sorry to interrupt your flow there, Kelly.
O’DWYER:
That's all right.
JONES:
Our next question is from Nina Larcombe.
QUESTIONER 4:
Yes, good evening. Thanks, Tony, and good evening panel and everybody. In 1940, the Greek Prime Minister said no to the Italian invasion, the Axis power invasion of Greece. This week the Prime Minister of Greece faces a big dilemma. Will he pay the creditors the 450 million euros that the country owes, this week, or will he pay the pensions and public service salaries which also are due this week? In other words, will he feed his people, reduce austerity? Now, although the creditors may have been somewhat irresponsible because Greece was already more or less bankrupt in 2010, it's still never a good idea to default. So my question to the panel is should the Prime Minister of Greece say no to its creditors.
JONES:
I will start with Michael Stutchbury because I know you've followed this pretty closely. There is news tonight that actually the Greek Foreign Minister, who learnt his trade in Melbourne to a large degree, is now saying that Greece will pay back its debt under any circumstances, they will, but perhaps slower than the creditors want.
STUTCHBURY:
Yes, that's Yanis Varoufakis, the finance minister - the Greek Australian finance minister and I think this week it is 450 million euros which is part of a repayment to the IMF and I think the Greek Government has vowed to say it will definitely pay back the IMF. It does not want to default on its debts. It wants to get a negotiated package, but I think what you're seeing right now is we've had an election of what really what is quite a very far left Greek government in Greece. They've given the finger to the Germans.
JONES:
I will explain that to you in a little while, Nana. That’s an Australian expression. It’s a rude one.
STUTCHBURY:
Photographically they actually have given the finger to the Germans. They’re threatening to cosy up to Vladimir Putin to align themselves with the Russian, which in turn and then threatening to undermine EU sanctions against Russia over the whole of the Ukraine issue, so they're really sort of kicking up a big fuss, threatening to cause all sorts of problems in the whole euro area because a Greek default would be a very bad thing and a so-called Grexit, where Greece exited from the euro would be a very dangerous thing as well. Very uncertain as to what would happen. But I think the basic thing is that Greece went into the crisis really overextended. It had, year after year, under the euro where they could borrow on very favourable terms as though they had the credit rating of the Germans. They borrowed and they had budget deficits of 6 pest of GDP, a net government debt of 100% of GDP, current account deficits of 6 to 8% of GDP and they basically had a cost structure that was uncompetitive. You know, they can't compete with a drachma, as it was then, at the current level linked to the euro and then, in turn, linked to the old Deutsche mark. So they're very uncompetitive. They’ve just got back, with a lot of pain, have got back to having what’s known as a primary budget balance, where excluding their interest payments, they’re now just getting the budget in balance but they were a long way in deficit beforehand and basically they’re not competitive enough and now they’re trying to create a big stir so they can get a bit of a haircut to the creditors on some of their debt. They’ll probably get it but I don’t think that will be the end of it because fundamentally they’ve got to become a more competitive economy, they’ve got to attract foreign capital, they’ve got to become pro-business and the government that’s installed there shows no signs of doing that. In fact the opposite. It’s being quite antagonistic.
JONES:
All right. I will bring in Van Badham. I don’t know if you ever met there Melbourne-trained Greek finance minister, Varoufakis
BADHAM:
Oh, alas. Alas.
JONES:
You have met him.
BADHAM:
No, I haven’t met him but I--
JONES:
He scared the pants off a lot of people in your
BADHAM:
I am a great fan of his clothes.
JONES:
Yes, well, that’s right. He scared the pants off a lot of European creditors early on.
BADHAM:
Well, I can imagine he would because, certainly, you know, words and rhetoric along the lines of, “We are going to feed our people. We are going to honour pensions. Our priority is community and society,” are very terrifying to a lot of neo-liberal assumptions about how we run economies and this is, you know, the situation we find ourselves in, in the discussion in other Western countries about Greece. We have to be realistic about what happened there. The austerity fans are very keen in saying, oh, their spending was out of control. It was. It wasn't sensible spending but they had a massive revenue problem and this is one of the things that is very important for us, as Australians, to consider, that the taxation system in Greece was not working. They had a different taxation system to ours where you declared your income tax, it wasn't PAYE. There were opportunities for all kinds of rorts within the taxation system. So, combined with irresponsible spending and an eroded taxation base, that's why the Greek economy started to fall apart. So, obviously, we’re now in a situation where we have millions of people who need to eat, who don't have reliable work, who are living in a completely unstable society, where there is the rise of a fascist party, what are the governments supposed to do: prioritise the banks or the people? For me, easy decision, it would be the people, but this is what we see. Austerity is always a code for reassure the banks before you reassure your population. It is not actually about generating any kinds of economic opportunity. Economic opportunity is generated by spending. Austerity is about making banks feel more comfortable about getting their loans back.
JONES:
All right. Nana, you know if you sort of...
MOUSKOURI:
Yeah, it’s a very complicated theme to speak about, and I really - it's not when you are not very much involved you don't know the truth. The only thing I want to say and just I hope that the lady will be understand what I mean, the country has a big problem at this moment, and I think you cannot make a revolution and change the whole thing. We need Europe absolutely. Greece is - and at this point, the most important thing is to soothe the people's problem and then you can go and ask for whatever you want. This is another problem. You cannot in a crisis go and said, "Yes, but you owe us," or make enemies with everybody. No. We have to be friends and Europe is with us, I mean, and I believe in Europe because the first thing was not to have war around and there was no war and though 55 years or how many they are, now 60, 70, we didn't have a war in Europe, and this was important really to do. We have to get along and it is a problem of culture. Culture, when we got together in Europe, we didn't meet with our culture, it was only economic and this is wrong. We are humans. We have a culture. Nobody can insult the other. We have to get to know each other and make a compromise but in peace. I live outside from Greece for more than 50 years. I haven't lost my Greek identity. I tried to communicate with everybody. I speak most of the languages in Europe because I wanted to be friends and understand them, and I think you can, with your own way, to dialogue and re-coup what you didn't ask a certain moment. You know, so I'm sorry.
JONES:
No, that's okay.
MOUSKOURI:
But I accept the changes.
JONES:
One thing you did, in living outside of Greece, you certainly had to pay your taxes and if you...
MOUSKOURI:
I pay. No, excuse me...
JONES:
Lots of people in Greece...
MOUSKOURI:
Yes.
JONES:
You’re not going to say you didn't?
MOUSKOURI:
No, me, no.
JONES:
That would be headline news?
MOUSKOURI:
I tell you, you won't believe me, but I'm a very honest Greek and I'm very proud. I never go - yes, I never go any place without paying. The first thing I had when I went - I was a very poor girl, I got myself a very good lawyer that he should really pay attention to what I was earning, why I was there, to have a permit where I was, I was not clandestine or so and I do pay my taxes. I have no problem with that.
JONES:
Can I just ask you though...
MOUSKOURI:
And in many countries, you know. I many countries also.
JONES:
I'm so glad to hear that.
MOUSKOURI:
Yeah.
JONES:
And I'm sure all those finance ministers in those countries would be happy as well. But can I just ask a question?
MOUSKOURI:
Yeah.
JONES:
Isn't that one of the big problems for Greece, that most Greek people, or many, many Greek people did not pay their taxes?
MOUSKOURI:
This I cannot tell you. I'm not there to know. You know, how can I say what they do. Even if I was there, nobody knows what your neighbour does. No? Do you say what you do?
JONES:
Okay. We’re going to move onto the Australian economy now, because we have got quite a few questions on that as well. We have a question from Patrick Westman.
QUESTIONER 5:
My question is to Michael Stutchbury. Michael, your readership, the business community, requires a level of certainty surrounding the Government's economic agenda and the country's economic future but the Government's key economic document, the budget, has proven very difficult to pass. Where do you look to understand the Government's economic agenda and the country’s economic future direction, and what is the impact of that uncertainty on the business community?
STUTCHBURY:
I think, like in a mini version of Greece, I think Australia is getting itself into a bit of a spot of bother now. It's clear that we've been through the biggest mining and resources boom in our history. The iron ore price, which was our biggest export, at the start of the 2000s was around about $20 to $30. It went up to a peak of $180 in 2011/2012. The Reserve Bank Governor said that was the greatest gift of income to Australia since the gold rush of the 1850s but since then, of course, the iron ore price has headed south and it's headed south much faster than people had expected and just over Easter it's got down to, I think, US $47 a tonne. I think Australians don’t really realise how much our high standard of living and our prosperity really depends on the price we how much we get for our major exports, iron ore and coal, and other primary commodities. We are basically a commodity exporting country. The price the rest of the world pays us for this has really taken a big dive. That's really affected our budget position and the budget has built in a whole lot of promises over the next decade and a whole lot of pressures coming from the ageing population, which means there’s a whole lot of promises but what’s happening is the rest of the world is not paying us as much as we thought it would for what we sell to the rest of the world. That means our tax revenue have fallen and there’s this nasty gap that has opened up over the budget deficit and the political system is now failing to come up with a consensus about how to close that gap, because we're also very now reliant on China, very vulnerable to something going wrong with China. China has got some imbalances in its own economy. If they take a hiccup, the unemployment rate could go up. The budget deficit, if we get a down turn here in the Australian economy - and we’re overdue for one. We haven't had one in nearly a quarter of a century. If we get a significant down turn, our budget deficit will blow out, as the Reserve Bank Government says, in a heartbeat, to about 6% of GDP. That will be $90 billion. That would affect our AAA credit rating. It would also affect the AA credit rating of our banks and they’ve got to borrow money offshore just to keep the place afloat. Our housing prices are now being inflated by very low interest rates, record low interest rates, and it’s pushing up our house prices at the same time as our export prices are falling. So we’ve got quite a big imbalance that we’ve got to face and the political system, through Ed and Kelly and other political leaders but also the whole country, has got to figure out a way that we've just got to make some adjustments. We’ve got a bright future. We’re a very prosperous nature but we do have to deal with the fact that suddenly, you know, our income is now shrinking. It went up between the early 1990s and around about 2012, Australian income went up per capita by about two-thirds. It’s been a golden two decades for us. Since 2012 it has been coming off. It’s actually been declining slightly. So the period of very strong income growth is now over and we're fighting over a pie which is now shrinking.
JONES:
So, Michael, and if you can answer this briefly, it goes to, I guess, the heart of the question is where do you look then for reform because we heard from the President of the BCA just yesterday that it has to be decoupled from the budget. It can no longer, because of political process, look for reform in the Australian budget?
STUTCHBURY:
Well, clearly we've got to get the budget under control. Getting the budget right is the foundation. It’s been the foundation, along with a credible monetary policy, low inflation for these two decades of...
JONES:
But have there been mixed messages coming from the Government on that score?
STUTCHBURY:
Definitely.
JONES:
Because, on the one hand, a few months ago this was the biggest crisis every and now, apparently it’s not such a big crisis?
STUTCHBURY:
I think it goes back to the trust in government issue we talk about before that neither side of politics really squared with the Australian electorate in the September 2000 election. Both sides, the Government talked a big talk about it but, unusually for him, Tony Abbott hasn't shown enough conviction on this issue. He went in saying, “We've got a budget crisis but we're not going to cut this, this, and this. We're not even going to cut the ABC,” for God's sake. And so there’s ...
O’DWYER:
I think you’ve just lost the crowd.
HUSIC:
Just stop the camera from going on this side.
STUTCHBURY:
So there’s no emergency.
JONES:
Okay. All right.
STUTCHBURY:
And plus a parental paid leave scheme which totally contradicted it. Now, then he goes and says, “Oh, no, we've got to cut all this stuff." People say, because the first thing, it’s like denial of the population. They don't want to hear the thing and they’re very willing to blame, in this case, I think...
JONES:
Okay. We were calling for a brief answer here, remember.
STUTCHBURY:
...with some justification, blaming the politicians for not saying we do have a bit of a problem. We do have to fix it up and we've turned to this lack of trust and broken promises debate. The system has got to get back into dealing with this problem.
JONES:
Van Badham?
BADHAM:
Well, it's very interesting to hear about, you know, the falling iron ore prices in the context of the fact that, you know, the Labor Government did try and bring in a mining resource tax that was fought bitterly by the mining industry when times were good. When times were good there was an opportunity for us, as a people, to tax and realise our wealth as a nation, which was in our deposits and our iron ore deposits. Now, that was fought so bitterly that that tax became toothless and meaningless and we didn't re-coup when times were good. Times were good and we, as a people, could have had the revenue from when times were good and it's a simplistic way of saying it but that's what we're left with now. We don't have a situation like they have in Norway where the sovereign wealth fund from their oil deposits has made guarantees against fluctuations in oil prices and, you know, God help them, the end of their oil reserves. We gave that opportunity up. I mean, we’re essentially - if all we're doing is thinking in economic terms about iron ore prices, we really should nationalise Gina Rinehart and declare her a national treasure and take the wealth that could have come to us from the corporations.
JONES:
Spoken like a true Marxist.
BADHAM:
This is not a question of Marxism. This is a question of fair taxation and if we are talking about economic...
JONES:
Well, I think nationalising Gina Rinehart probably is a (indistinct)...
BADHAM:
I am being facetious to illustrate a point. The point is that we had an opportunity and we lost it and if we are looking for guarantees within the economy and genuine reform we have to look at taxation fairness. In the news today, Rupert Murdoch $4.5 billion siphoned from...
JONES:
Okay. We’ll come to that in a minute, Van, but I want to hear from Kelly O’Dwyer. We're running out of time for our questions and so I just ask everyone just to keep their answers a little shorter. I’m sorry about that.
O’DWYER:
Yeah, look, I’ll be brief in response to Patrick’s question. I think the first point to make here is that we were talking earlier about austerity and when austerity hits it hurts and it hurts some of the most vulnerable people in our communities. We never want to get to a situation in Australia where we are bringing in austerity measures. The Reserve Bank Governor has warned, as Michael has said, has warned over many hearings of the House Standing Committee on economics that we're on the wrong path, we're on the wrong trajectory at the moment. We are spending far more than we bring in, and it's not simply a matter of our income dropping. It is also because we exponentially increased spending in this country and we did it at an unsustainable level and, at the moment, if we were to continue on the path that we were left when we first came into Government, net debt to GDP would have, over the next 40 years, as evidenced by the Intergenerational Report, would have blown out to around about 122%. Now, it's not Greece. Greece is 171%, but it's double that of Spain. Now, if we continue on the path that we've currently got at the moment, where we have reduced some spending but it is still growing - it is still growing, we are not paying back debt yet - if we go along the path that we have legislated in the Senate we are going to hit Spain levels, Italy and Spain levels of around about 60% of net debt to GDP. Michael makes a good point before which is we can’t withstand...
JONES:
Sorry, does that mean the logic of that would be you are going to have a very, very tough budget coming up in May?
O’DWYER:
No, no, the logic of that means...
HUSIC:
No, a dull tough Budget.
O’DWYER:
No, no, no.
HUSIC:
It’s apparently going to be dull and tough.
O’DWYER:
The logic is that we need to have a sensible, adult conversation about what we are spending on, what our priorities are as a nation and we also need to have a sensible discussion about how revenue is raised.
JONES:
But will you have that discussion before the budget or after it? That’s the point.
O’DWYER:
Well, we’re going to continue to have...
JONES:
Because it sounds like the budget is not going to be tough anymore because you’ve been scared off having tough budgets.
O’DWYER:
No, I mean, you asked the question before Tony, you know, when you bring about reform, do you do that overnight or do you have a proper conversation about it? Clearly you need to have a proper conversation about it. That's what the Intergenerational Report is all about. It's about setting the framework to have this discussion, because we know there are going to be increased pressures on the budget and the tax discussion paper is also an opportunity to look at how we can increase and grow our economy, because it’s about growing our economy.
JONES:
Okay, Kelly, our next question is about that. It’s about the tax issue, indeed. It’s from Noel Rowland and I will bring Ed in first to answer that. Go ahead Noel.
QUESTIONER 6:
Recent reports have suggested the Government is considering introducing a Google tax, a specific tax integrity measure to target multinationals who are allegedly shifting profits overseas to avoid paying tax in Australia. How does the juxtaposition of tinkering with the system like this fit in with the Government's tax mantra that everything is on the table and the rethink of the tax system as a whole?
JONES:
I should add that Noel is the CEO of the Tax Institute. And I’ll go first to Ed Husic on that question.
HUSIC:
On the issue of the Google tax sounded great on paper but there’s an issue because we’d actually investigated it on our side of the finance and the problem is you’ve got a whole series of tax agreements that, you know, are going to be - effectively, if you bring in the Google tax, the question is whether or not it would run counter to those agreements and whether or not you’d draw retaliatory action from other countries. So it's not as clear-cut but we have said that this issue of, as you've seen these tech giants grow and as you've seen the way that they’ve set up their businesses in different parts of world and different jurisdictions that there is an issue there and we need to deal with it and we’d had a series of proposals that we’d proposed when we were in government, weren't followed through by this government and we've actually come up, on our side of the fence, with proposals to try and address, you know, multinational profit-shifting and the impact on tax that would be able to benefit the bottom line by about $2 billion. We are trying to find these ways to change the tax system in a world that is changing itself, but it's going to take some work and commitment by both sides of politics to get that done.
JONES:
So essentially you support the Hockey idea of investigating, as he is doing, what many multinationals are actually doing in this country and then working out a way to try and tax them.
HUSIC:
He is doing a lot of investigating and a lot of speaking and very little acting. I mean, he’s been talking about this - you can do as many Google searches on how many times Joe Hockey has actually talked about this and get a lot more responses than any action that he’s undertaken physically to follow this issue up. We were told it would be dealt with at the G20. We were told in a ministerial statement this would be happening and it's just not eventuating, so he there needs to be work in that space but you're not seeing it.
JONES:
Michael Stutchbury, I’ll just bring you in. then I’ll go to Kelly and the other panellists. But, I mean, Fairfax reported over the weekend, Van Badham just referred to it, that your old boss, Rupert Murdoch, had been shifting $4.5 billion back to the United States. Is that a profit-shifting arrangement in the same way that we're talking about with the other multinationals like Google and Apple and all of the other - well, the mining companies, Rio Tinto and so on?
STUTCHBURY:
Yeah, well, I'm not sure it's exactly the same as to what's alleged for Google and Apple and so forth and the Financial Review we will be reporting tomorrow instances of this that relate to our big mining companies, as you say BHP and Rio. I think it’s an issue for all...
JONES:
So how big is it with those big mining companies, if you can reveal what's in the paper tomorrow?
STUTCHBURY:
Well, they were reasonably big but I think both sides of politics...
JONES:
How many billions?
STUTCHBURY:
I won’t give you a billion number.
JONES:
You’re starting to sound like a politician, Michael.
STUTCHBURY:
Both sides of...
O’DWYER:
You’ve got to buy the paper, Tony.
HUSIC:
It’s paywall. It’s all about the paywall.
JONES:
I'm trying to talk to you through the paywall now.
Both sides of politics are clearly focusing on how can - and in fact, tax offices around the world are all focusing on how they can get - stop profit-shifting by multinational corporations which means they somehow have no domicile or they have a domicile in a very low tax jurisdiction and they want to get more money out of it. So I think that’s - it will get very technical. One way or the other, through the OECD or through individual countries, they’ll more to screw more money out of international multinationals, but I don't think that's the solution, the ultimate solution to the Budget problem that Australia finds itself in. It's bigger than that and nor is it just a matter of slapping on a mining tax. Under the mining tax that Kevin Rudd brought out, we’d be now - the Tax Office would shortly be handing out money to the mining companies that were going broke because under that regime the Australian Government actually took a 40% equity stake in mining companies. So it would have been very bad on the downside. That’s one of the reasons why that tax blew up. So it is clearly an issue that governments around the world are going to tackle. It’s very technical but it’s not the thing that is going to get us out of the budget hole.
JONES:
Sure. Van Badham?
BADHAM:
Well, I mean, what’s going to get us out - it's very difficult to listen to the rhetoric around it's all about spending, it’s all about out-of-control spending. It is about taxation fairness and it is about revenue and if we want to look at taxation fairness within the Australian economy, yes, we have to look at the gouging that’s going on with multinational corporations, tax havens and hiding taxation revenue from the Australian people. That’s outrageous. We also have to plug the hole in superannuation that we all know this there. With know that with superannuation capped at a 15% tax that the highest income earners in Australia are able to put their capital assets into superannuation. It’s a flaw in the system and it is gouging that system, which is supposed to pay for our ageing population. It means that money is being hidden from us by the people who can most afford to give back to the economy. We also have to look at things like negative gearing. Negative gearing was originally introduced in Australia to increase supply within the housing market. The idea was that you would invest as a private investor in a new build and you would get a tax credit because a house would be created that people could move into. Well, all of a sudden negative gearing, because of reforms made by Howard, is about investing and getting tax breaks for merely owning property.
JONES:
Okay. We’re nearly running out of time, so I’m going to have to get you to wind up.
BADHAM:
All of these things are things that we have to address before we start cutting spending, which usually affects the poorest and most vulnerable Australians. That's what we have to do.
JONES:
Kelly O'Dwyer, a quick response, if you can.
O’DWYER:
Well...
JONES:
It sounds like you, I mean, if we believe what's written about what's intended, although we have to wait for tax papers and the reviews and then beyond the reviews, the green and the white paper and so on and then some years down the track you might get change, but are you going to change in these areas that we are talking about?
O’DWYER:
So we agree that we should not have profit-shifting overseas. It is one of the issues that we took up when we had the presidency of the G20, when we took that on. Joe Hockey made it one of his cause celebs and we were able to get agreements with a number of international partners on that particular issue and we're working together with the OECD because the truth is, if there is international profit-shifting, they will go somewhere else and you need to have international agreements in place in order to stop it. So that is what we are working on, but that hasn't stopped us making changes to thin capitalisation rules where you have people trying to take money out of the country that ought to stay in the country. We are looking at plugging those loop hopes. We have been doing that consistently but it is not going to be the silver bullet to the Budget repair. You know, even on Labor's own figures on this particular issue where they said we were going to raise $1.6 billion is, unfortunately, a drop in the ocean of what we need to achieve.
JONES:
Are we going to see any silver bullets in this Budget?
O’DWYER:
Well, you know, it’s going to be a hard slog the whole way through. There is no one silver bullet and to pretend that there is actually very dishonest.
JONES:
All right. Nana, listing to this whole discussion about multinationals and the taxes they pay...
MOUSKOURI:
Yes, I listen. Yeah, yes, absolutely.
JONES:
Are the multinationals - in a moral sense, are the multinationals who aren't paying taxes, are they any better than the tax dodgers in Greece?
MOUSKOURI:
I think it’s very normal to pay taxes. I think this is very honest. You work. You pay taxes. I mean, that is normal. But I must say something also, that life is very difficult. I just want to say this. It's very difficult but it is beautiful if you want to believe. There are people who suffer even much more than we think they do or we suffer. They all have hope because there is hope in life. We have to learn about the taxes, it is a new world. We never spoke before about money so much as they do today. I mean I was only thinking to sing my little song and then it became a work that I could get paid but I must say there is sadness in life and there is also happiness. They both have an end. We have to go through sadness sometimes in order to get to the happiness, but once you go get to the happiness, it also has an end, so we have to try to be fair and honest and pay our taxes and do everything we can so that it won't end, but there are problems everywhere, but let's hope that there will be solved. The people, I think they listen. Also the politicians, they give the solutions and they listen tonight. So thank you very much, all, because everybody has an opinion that is worth of listening, and then you decide who you like.
JONES:
Final quick word to Ed. Now, Ed, you can either come up with a solution now or you can sing us a song. What do you choose?
HUSIC:
Yeah, I've got it right here.
JONES:
A brief solution.
O’DWYER:
Don’t sing.
HUSIC:
Very quickly, I think the key thing is Michael was touching on the enormity of the problems facing the country and what needs to be done. Now, I think the biggest thing is being able to have, you know, with reform processes there are going to be winners and losers but people have got to be able to trust the process and my big concern about where Australian policy is going we paid a price in the last term. People believed that we were doing things that we said we wouldn't do, and we - you know, we got hit and hit well. The other side of politics said that they would be very virtuous and, you know, well, you've seen the last - well, the first 18 months of this government. I wouldn't describe it as virtuous. The key for both sides of politics is to be able to, in the reform process, engender public trust. We've got to find a way to do that but, you know, I think the biggest thing that has been of concern is the fact that, you know, Michael, you made reference to the fact that broken promises and trust seem to occupy so much of this space, but that's been the problem that that trust has been drained and the Coalition has to work hard to get that back.
JONES:
Okay. We're going to have to leave it there because that is all we have time for tonight, I'm sorry to say. To those of you who have your hands up, I’m sorry about that too but we have to leave it there. Please thank our panel: Ed Husic, Nana Mouskouri, Van Badham, Kelly O'Dwyer and Michael Stutchbury. Nana, that is your cue. Thank you very much. Next Monday, we will be joined by Australian journalist Peter Greste, who spent 400 days in an Egyptian jail; the manager of Government business in the Senate Mitch Fifield; Labor Member for Perth, Alannah MacTiernan and the Chief Executive of the regional Australia Institute Sue McCluskey. Now, we’ll end tonight with Nana Mouskouri singing her much loved classic, and feel free to join in, The White Rose of Athens. Till next week's Q&A, goodnight.