Rafael Epstein:
Good to have you both here. I'll start with you, Michael Sukkar. I appreciate affairs are moving quickly in Canberra. The speculation is rife. We do not know for sure. The person who was raided today, could be accused of leaking to News Corporation. This is a story essentially saying maybe our spies should have a different set of rules about who they can spy on. There's no national security implications. It's a leak of a policy discussion. What's the public interest in pursuing that sort of leak?
Michael Sukkar:
Well Raf, the public interest is always about ensuring that sensitive information and whatever that sensitive information is, is not disclosed in a way that it shouldn't be. Now if you're an employee – and I'm speaking in general terms here, I'm not speaking specifically about this case – but if you're an employee of an agency of the Commonwealth in some way, shape or form, you're expected to treat that information, whether it's sensitive or protected or top secret or whatever it might be, in a way that the law proscribes. And no one's above the law and a journalist is not above the law and a politician is not above the law.
Rafael Epstein:
Well there's the law and then there's the classification of information and there's a huge machine in charge of classifying it.
Michael Sukkar:
And if information has been disclosed contrary to its classification and you agree to that as an employee or as a Minister of the Crown, I might add. No one's above the law. Now, I wouldn't be inviting the AFP to raid my house but if I broke the law, the great thing about our country is that no one's above the law and I'd have my house raided and as it should be. And here, journalists are no different. I think we rightly put journalists on a pedestal because they hold the government to account but no one is above the law including journalists.
Rafael Epstein:
Richard?
Richard Di Natale:
Well, it's hugely alarming Raf and its part of a pattern of behaviour we've seen from this Government. This relentless sort of, march towards a police state where you see attacks on journalists, on whistle-blowers.
I sort of reflected the other day on what's happening with the prosecution of a whistle-blower in East Timor, where the Australian Government spied on East Timor in an effort to try and rip them off from resources that rightly belong to them and we have a Government prosecuting a whistle-blower and a lawyer involved in that case.
We've had journalists who have been raided and it's very worrying in a democracy when you have those people who are there – journalists and whistle-blowers – to hold power to account when governments start acting in this way.
Rafael Epstein:
It's about eleven minutes past five. I do want to get onto the economy but Jason has called from East Melbourne, I think on energy. What do you want to ask, Jason?
Caller:
Yes, my question was in relation to energy supply in Victoria and with the shutdown of Hazelwood and the loss of 25 per cent of the energy supply there and Yallourn being shut down in the next couple of years and another 25 per cent there. That's nearly 50 per cent that's being generated out of Victoria. Where's that supply going to come from and would Senator Di Natale consider nuclear power, and at what cost?
Rafael Epstein:
That's to you, Richard Di Natale. Would you consider nuclear energy?
Richard Di Natale:
Well the problem with nuclear is that it's too slow, too dirty and too dangerous and even if it was going to be considered as a response to the current energy crisis that we're in – and we are because of the Government 's lack of planning – you wouldn't have a nuclear energy industry in Australia for twenty years. So it's not a response to the current crisis.
Rafael Epstein:
So you're not open to the idea?
Richard Di Natale:
Well no, because of all of the reasons that I've mentioned. It's slow, it's expensive, it's dirty and it's dangerous. And we've got alternatives. We've got solar, we've got wind. We've got storage, we've got demand management. The technology exists right now. See, the problem we've got at the moment is not a technological one, it's a political one. I remember when we were debating the renewable energy target in the parliament a few years ago and we were told that it was unrealistic, it was going to harm the economy. Well we're on track to exceed it.
Michael Sukkar:
You said we'd never meet it under out Government.
Richard Di Natale:
Because the technology is moving so quickly. So quickly.
Rafael Epstein:
Can I get onto the renewable energy target in a moment? The same question to you, Michael Sukkar. Would you consider nuclear energy? Do you think it's a good idea to consider it?
Michael Sukkar:
Well in principle there are a number of jurisdictions around the world including France who have deployed it well. I think there are so many other options available to Australia and sadly the predicament we find ourselves now…interrupted.
Rafael Epstein:
So are you agreeing with Richard that it's too expensive and takes too long?
Michael Sukkar:
I think it's a really long term proposition.
Rafael Epstein:
Can I frame that moment of Michael Sukkar and Richard Di Natale agreeing?
Michael Sukkar:
I think Richard and I have agreed more than once on this programme?
Richard Di Natale:
We have agreed on occasion.
Michael Sukkar:
Where we do disagree is firstly, Richard is now taking credit for us meeting all of our renewable energy targets although for years Richard has been saying 'under the Liberals we're never going to meet the targets'…Interrupted
Richard Di Natale:
No, no, no. I never said that. Emissions targets. Not the renewable energy target.
Michael Sukkar:
So Richard you concede that under our Government, we've meet those targets. Secondly, the predicament we find ourselves in in Victoria is a natural consequence of the policy that Richard and the Labor Party under Daniel Andrews have been proposing for years. That is that you run-down coal-fired power and without any plan for what comes next to deal with that. The issue with renewables – and we've got a great pipeline of investment in renewables – is not sufficient storage capacity which means that it's not dispatchable. The issue we find ourselves in potentially this summer, with the risks of blackouts again, is a natural consequence of the Greens and the Labor Party policy in Victoria and I wonder how they're going to answer Victorians who suffer blackouts.
Rafael Epstein:
I'll give Richard Di Natale a chance to answer that. Richard is of course the Leader of the Greens. Michael Sukkar who you're hearing just there is one of Scott Morrison's Ministers. Michael, just to narrow down something I guess that is very much related to energy. Last Friday, the quarterly emissions data came out. Our emissions as a nation have gone up quite consistently for five years. They need to go down for us to meet out international agreements. When are they going to go down?
Michael Sukkar:
Well I think – and I'm not going to profess to be an expert, this is not a part of my portfolio – but our emissions intensity every quarter is reducing, so that's important. But we are one of the countries with a first world economy with one of the fastest population growth rates, generally because of immigration and obviously, Raf, the more people you have the higher your emissions. That's why I think we look at emissions intensity, quite rightly…interrupted
Rafael Epstein:
There's that annoying bit of paper that we signed that say they will go down.
Michael Sukkar:
We are very confident that we'll meet every single one of our commitments. Unlike many other jurisdictions, when we signed up for Kyoto we met it. Or in fact, when we didn't even sign up to it, we still met the targets. We will meet our Paris commitments, just like we said we'd meet the renewable energy targets that for years we'd been told wouldn't happen under the Liberals, it is happening. Raf, I'm confident that all those commitments we've entered into, we will discharge.
Rafael Epstein:
Richard Di Natale, they've got there before, they'll get there again?
Richard Di Natale:
Look, Raf, the only measure that actually counts when it comes to preventing the breakdown of our climate is how much pollution is in the atmosphere. I mean, that really inconvenient thing called science doesn't actually take into account emission intensity, it doesn't take into account the amount of people. Climate change is simply about the amount of pollution that is in the atmosphere and the amount of pollution in the atmosphere is going up under this Government.
Now, it's true that what that means is that we're not on track to meet our commitments, as weak and as paltry as they were. Based on the current trajectory they have no chance of getting there. And let's also remember that they're using dodgy accounting in the carry-over of permits from the Kyoto agreement…interrupted.
Rafael Epstein:
Can I ask you something about the dodgy accounting?
Richard Di Natale:
Yes
Rafael Epstein:
So you can have a disagreement and happy to have a policy agreement about how we measure our emissions. Isn't the important thing, and you might be able to say, 'oh I can't believe the numbers coming out of China because I don't trust their Government'. The important thing is this. Australia has signed up to the Paris agreement. How they get there, that isn't as important. The Australian Government is putting their shoulder to the wheel with a whole lot of other Governments. Isn't that what's important? Isn't that more important than a disagreement about how you count emissions?
Richard Di Natale:
No, because how you count your emissions is how you count how much pollution is in the atmosphere and if you start saying, 'oh well, we're going to pollute more but we're going to subtract some of it because of some agreement struck ten years ago', it doesn't actually impact on the amount of pollution in the atmosphere. So the problem is pollution is going up. Pollution is going up right now.
The agreement that we struck took into account the fact that some historical data about reducing pollution. So the bottom line is, the only measure that counts is are we reducing the amount of pollution in the atmosphere? We're not doing it. We're not doing it anywhere near enough. Even under the very weak Paris climate agreement…interrupted.
Michael Sukkar:
Well, I'm glad you said that, Richard, because you are effectively arguing against the Paris agreement, which allows China and India to increase emissions until 2030.
Richard Di Natale:
I'm arguing against Australia's commitment because I think those Abbott era targets were very, very weak. But we're not even going to meet those, Raf. Pollution is going up, that's indisputable and the reason it's going up is because the Government doesn't actually have a plan and it's got no energy plan. It talks about the issue of coal-fired power. This has been known for decades. If they'd been, rather than fighting amongst themselves – and they tore themselves apart over the last energy policy, the NEG – if we actually had a plan in place to transition out of coal, to have a storage target, to have renewables, we'd actually have a 21st century energy system.
Rafael Epstein:
Your chance to ask questions of Senator Richard Di Natale, he is of course the Leader of the Greens. Michael Sukkar is the Minister for Housing and Assistant Treasurer.
Michael, you've been there for six years. The economy hasn't been this bad since for ten years. How much of that is your Government's fault?
Michael Sukkar:
Well the economy, Raf, contrary to that assertion is in really good shape when you compare it comparable nations. We've got one of the highest real growth rates in GDP…interrupted
Rafael Epstein:
So can I take it back? You have to go back to 2000 to find a worse result, and that's "really good shape"?
Richard Di Natale:
Just a flesh wound, Raf.
Michael Sukkar:
No, no. We've got employment that's more than double the OECD average of 2.6 per cent. We've had 1.4 million jobs created since this Government was formed. That I think is historically been a really great proxy for the health of the economy that's employment and jobs growth. Yes we saw GDP growth year-on-year at 1.9 per cent which is slightly below the two and a quarter per cent that we were forecasting in the budget. I expect though a big component of that particularl quarter, Raf, was the fact that there was a great deal of uncertainty with the federal election. We always see…interrupted.
Rafael Epstein:
The growth figures are over a year, though.
Michael Sukkar:
I'm talking about the last quarter. I'd expect this quarter from what we're seeing, the green shoots through the economy the restrictions on credit I think are starting to work their way through. $14 billion has hit people's accounts in tax cuts, Reserve Bank interest rate cuts. I expect this quarter is going to be pretty strong.
Rafael Epstein:
Do you really want to, as Assistant Treasurer, go with 'going really well'? That was your description.
Michael Sukkar:
Compared to other jurisdictions, absolutely.
Rafael Epstein:
That's not what I'm hearing from the Reserve Bank Governor, it's not what I see in wages growth.
Michael Sukkar:
Well Raf, if I were you, I would be looking around at a number of countries that have had quarters of negative growth. Now, I know there were a lot of people cheering for negative growth in this quarter saying that 'potentially we'd have negative growth'. Well we have had a number of 0.5 per cent growth. These things are often relative, Raf. Do we want the economy to be stronger? Of course. That's why the plan we took to the election was all about unshackling the economy, making sure we didn't impose taxes that certainly were being proposed by our opposite numbers.
Raf, if you think the economy is soft now, which certainly this quarters numbers show some softening, boy we dodged a bullet at the election because Labor would have piled taxes upon taxes onto an already softening economy. It's a long winded way of saying, we think that the green shots are going to reveal themselves over the next quarter.
Rafael Epstein:
Richard Di Natale, we've still had decades of continuous growth. Michael Sukkar's point is that, compared to the rest of the world, we are doing pretty well aren't we?
Richard Di Natale:
Raf, these are a terrible set of numbers. They are the worst numbers in a decade. You've got persistent and stubborn unemployment and underemployment. You've got stagnation, you've got wage stagnation. I mean, the test for me is, speak to people about how they think the economy is travelling. Most people out there will tell you, stagnant wage growth, underemployment, unemployment not budging and now these figures and they are the figures that are as bad as we've seen in decades. You can always find countries that are worse off and I suppose the more constructive part of this conversation is do you actually just need to accept that what we need to do is just business as usual?…interrupted.
Rafael Epstein:
What could we do differently because I'm not sure that the Reserve, private business or Government have really got any good ideas?
Richard Di Natale:
Well, here are a few. We think that we need a green stimulus package right now. What does that look like? It looks like, a big investment in…interrupted.
Rafael Epstein:
There'd be no surplus would there? It would mean a deficit budget.
Richard Di Natale:
Well, no, because a big investment in infrastructure is not going to effect the surplus, productive infrastructure. We go back to that conversation about energy and actually transforming our energy system so that it's a 21st century energy system.
Rafael Epstein:
So who would be spending on infrastructure? Where would the money come from?
Richard Di Natale:
The Federal Government.
Rafael Epstein:
I'm not saying you should or shouldn't have a surplus…interrupted.
Richard Di Natale:
It's off-book.
Rafael Epstein:
So NBN like?
Richard Di Natale:
Exactly
Rafael Epstein:
With a plan to flog it off later?
Michael Sukkar:
We've got a $100 billion infrastructure programme.
Richard Di Natale:
Efficient public infrastructure. Energy efficient housing. We've got a huge issue with people sleeping rough at night, people not being able to afford a home. We want to see a big investment in creating social and public housing. Public transport infrastructure. Productivity enhancing infrastructure is really important.
Rafael Epstein:
Mind you, you need to get the Labor Party to agree to all of this for it to happen because you're unlikely to govern on your own after the next election, aren't you?
Richard Di Natale:
Sure. Second thing is, Raf, Newstart. $75 per week. Make sure that that money is going into the pockets who need it, people who can't afford to put a roof over their head and food on the table. That's money that gets spent in local economies. Raising the minimum wage. Making sure that you lift the wage freeze on the public sector. I mean they're all things that you can do, to get the economy moving. A green stimulus package.
Rafael Epstein:
Spending on green energy and Newstart, understood. We're a little while away from an election so I will stop you there.
Michael, I want to get to a few calls but, is the Government going to be doing something drastically new? You're the Assistant Treasurer but the Treasurer, Josh Frydenberg this morning, a whole lot of ideas were thrown at him and he said, 'well, we'll look at that in the budget'.
There's not going to be any big, new difference is there?
Michael Sukkar:
No Raf, there's no drastic measures. The point is that the fundamentals of the Australian economy are strong. There's no doubt that the softening that we've seen in the economy has been impacted, I think the election was an impact because we see that with every election cycle. The uncertainty around elections means there's a little bit of a pullback in investment. There's no doubt that trade tensions between two of our largest trading partners in the US and China is having some impact.
I mean, I'm not saying that this is utopia and that there's not hard work ahead of us. What I'm saying is that the fundamentals are strong, we're still growing more strongly and Richard I'm not comparing us to third world countries, I'm comparing us to G7 nations, G20 nations, you know comparable first world economies.
We've got some of the fastest jobs growth. Would we like growth to be higher? Of course, Raf and that's what we're working towards every day.
Rafael Epstein:
John is in Tumut Valley, what did you want to say?
Caller:
Hello. If Richard Di Natale thinks that the economy is so bad, I was wondering what bright ideas he thinks he could come up with?
Rafael Epstein:
Well did you hear his ideas then?
Caller:
Most of his ideas would've put us back to living in a cave.
Rafael Epstein:
Do you want to ask him a question or should I just put that reflection to him?
Caller:
You can put that reflection to him. I don't need to ask him.
Rafael Epstein:
Okay, green energy and raising Newstart is going to put us into a cave.
Richard Di Natale:
Well I just talked about the massive investment in housing infrastructure, energy efficient housing infrastructure. So we'd be living in energy efficient housing. We'd have a 21st century energy system…interrupted.
Rafael Epstein:
Let me stop you there. John, does that sound okay?
Caller:
Well, I can't see it happening.
Rafael Epstein:
Okay, I'll leave it there, John. Interesting contribution.
Harold's in Chelsea. Harold, what did you want to ask?
Caller:
Minister, I'd like to ask you about how earlier this year, there was an editorial this year, I think it was in The Age on the 31st of January and it stated that $2 billion per year the Commonwealth pumped into community housing projects around the country. I don't know whether that's right but if it is right, then I think that's very, very restrictive…interrupted.
Rafael Epstein:
Where would you rather they spent the money, Harold?
Caller:
I'd rather they spent the money in public housing because community housing only cherry picks wealthier tenants. It doesn't actually address the problem of removing the homelessness problem.
Rafael Epstein:
Let me put that to Michael Sukkar because he is the Minister for Housing. You're familiar with that argument? Community housing doesn't help enough people, you've got to prioritise public housing?
Michael Sukkar:
I'm familiar with the argument. But just to clarify, we provide $1.5 billion to the states under the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement. It is then spent by the states on a combination of public housing and community housing. Some states have utilised more community housing than less.
Rafael Epstein:
Why not more public housing? Put your money there. Put your effort there.
Michael Sukkar:
Because there's a whole lot of funding that goes into public housing. Where I disagree with Harold is that community housing does play an extraordinarily important role because it often is the area of housing that deals with people who just cannot make market rent so there not homeless but they just can't make market rents so they get subsidised rental.
It also ensures that in some of our cities that there's key worker housing. The concept of key worker to your listeners, Raf, is Ambos, teachers etc. We've got big cities that can't function without those people. In Western Sydney for example, there are police officers who – not anymore thankfully – but previously were sleeping in their cars between shifts because the three hour drive home between shifts was just too far. So there's a role for community housing, Harold, there's a role for public housing. We actually fund the states who then make the decision and to the extent that states direct some of that money to community housing, I don't criticise them for because I think that its money well spent.
Rafael Epstein:
I don't have much time because I want to ask about the Tamil couple. There as a delay from what we know about their fate. That now looks like being a Friday court case. They are Tamils. They fear going back to Sri Lanka. Michael Sukkar, the Government has made thousands of interventions, at the Minister's discretion on a whole range of tourist visa, work visas, residencies. Why not make an exemption in this case as well?
Michael Sukkar:
Well because, Raf, our migration system means that if you intervene for one individual then that's one less place for somebody else. We've had the Federal Magistrates Court, the Federal Court, the High Court, all determine that this couple and their children are not refugees so it's quite simple. Those places should be taken by genuine refugees and if we make a decision, which would be quite an easy and popular political decision…interrupted.
Rafael Epstein:
It's been done before though. You've given spots to people from Myanmar interrupted.
Michael Sukkar:
And we obviously had 12,000 spots for people fleeing persecution from the Middle East. There's all those cases. But we've had 1,500 people return to Sri Lanka of people who are in largely similar positions and we've got to be fair about it. These places are for genuine refugees. It's not me telling you that they're not genuine refugees, that's what three courts have determined and so those places should, in our view, be taken by people who are refuges.
Rafael Epstein:
Richard Di Natale, you heard the argument?
Richard Di Natale:
I did. Firstly, there's an argument about whether it's safe to return to Sri Lanka. Putting that aside…interrupted.
Rafael Epstein:
Although they've lost that quite a few times in the court, haven't they? They've lost that argument?
Richard Di Natale:
Yes, although there are many people who would describe the situation as very volatile and will say that this family, should they return, will be at increased risk. But that aside, the Minister has discretion. He's used it. Here you've got a couple of people who've fled a civil war, who've raised a family in this beautiful country community. They've opened their hearts up to this family. Their two children have been raised here, they've made a great contribution. The whole reason we have ministerial discretion is so you can assess each individual case.
This should be something where the Prime Minister can step in and show a little bit of humanity. A bit of compassion and demonstrate that sure, he can continue to prosecute the arguments he wants to. No one for a moment would suggest that this is going to have any impact on future arrivals, but what it does do is allows a family who have been traumatised and brutalised to actually start their life here and continue to make a contribution in a community that wants them to do that.
Rafael Epstein:
Ten seconds, Michael Sukkar.
Michael Sukkar:
Well, I can understand the humanity of it but you know, if we provide a place for an individual here then someone else misses out. Someone that's waiting in a refugee camp in some part of the world. So it's not a cost-free decision, Richard.
Rafael Epstein:
I've got to leave it there. Thank you to you both. Nice to hear you agreeing and disagreeing in such a civil way. Thanks to both of you.