Interview - ABC Afternoon Briefing with Patricia Karvelas

PATRICIA KARVELAS: To discuss this, and there’s a whole lot more, let’s bring in our panel, Early Childhood Education Minister Anne Aly and Shadow Immigration Minister Dan Tehan. Welcome to both of you.

MINISTER ANNE ALY: Thank you.

DAN TEHAN: Thanks, Patricia.

KARVELAS: We’re going to start on that. Dan, was that just a thought bubble? Because it’s unconstitutional, it’s been tested in the High Court.

TEHAN: No, it wasn’t. I think there is a real frustration with how the system is currently working at the moment and how the courts are clogged up, how appeal after appeal is used. And I think what the Leader of the Opposition was expressing was that frustration that at some stage we are going to have a look at this.

Now, the High Court obviously made a decision last year. So, you know, there does need to be a discussion around these issues because it would be good if we had clear rules and clear guidelines and clear laws as to how we can make sure that those people who do come to Australia do and know and understand our values and especially our laws.

KARVELAS: But after you become a citizen shouldn’t you be dealt with by the law, and the law should deal with if you have a particular view, which, you know, is hate speech, isn’t that the law that should be dealing with it rather than just kicking people out?

TEHAN: Well, I think what – you know, what we do need to look at is that a lot of these people have dual citizenship. And so we need to look and see, okay, if you’ve got dual citizenship and you breach your trust that the Australian people have given in you with regards to your Australian citizenship, well, if you’re a dual citizen, do you have the right to keep your Australian citizenship?

KARVELAS: The High Court thinks yes.

TEHAN: Well, the High Court made a decision last year. Now, obviously we can have a look at the way that they made that and the laws around that and see whether we do need to have a conversation around whether we need to change some of the laws around this and see whether if people do come here – and especially if they are dual citizens – whether we can act.

KARVELAS: Anne Aly?

ALY: I’m a bit – I’m a bit angry that this conversation about antisemitism has been conveniently turned into a conversation about immigration as if somehow the two are connected. I think that’s a very deliberate political ploy by Peter Dutton, who, I might add, has said that he wants to re-introduce the “golden ticket” visa, which can be bought by people with money and that we know brought in people from organised crime gangs and people of, frankly, unworthy character into Australia.

So I would like to see us talking about the substantive issue here about hatred and the growth of hatred and the spread of hatred in our society. And when we have those conversations, not have those conversations hijacked by another conversation about immigration as if it’s only immigrants that are responsible for spreading hatred in this country. That’s what really disturbs me here, Patricia.

KARVELAS: Anne Aly makes a point about the fact antisemitism is a lot wider than anyone who may have come to this country more recently. It is clearly a big problem. Isn’t that what you really want to deal with?

TEHAN: Well, we have been dealing with that, and we have been appealing to the government now for a very long period of time to deal with that and deal with it right across this nation. So I don’t think you can say that all of a sudden we’ve just made this about immigration. This is an issue which the Leader of the Opposition has led the nation on in trying to rid this country of antisemitism. And it is about ridding it right across our nation, whether it be Australian citizens, whether it be dual citizens, whether it be those who are here as guests of our nation. And I don’t think that we can say all of a sudden that this has just had a narrow focus to it, because his leadership on this issue has been inspiring and outstanding. And so to just try and narrow cast it like that is completely and utterly wrong.

KARVELAS: But Peter Dutton even questioned why a male nurse – this male nurse got citizenship. I understand that actually happened when the Morrison government was in power.

TEHAN: Well, what Peter Dutton has said is that we do need to look as to how this has happened. And there will be –

KARVELAS: But it did happen under –

TEHAN: Yeah, yeah. There are incidences where this will have happened under Labor, under Liberal. But what we do need to do is look at it and say, okay, where is the system failing? How are we getting people coming into our country with these views when they’re required to take a citizenship pledge, we should be looking, okay, what do we do to try and fix this system. And that’s the point that he’s trying to make, because there is a frustration.

KARVELAS: Anne Aly?

ALY: I want – I just want to make this point. When you say, Dan, people coming into this country with these views, what if people are coming into this country as children – and I’m the Minister for Early Childhood, I see a lot of children, and let me tell you, they don’t – they’re not born with hate. They’re not born hating, right? People who are coming to this country may not be necessarily coming with those views. They may form those views because of this country, right?

So what are we doing more broadly in this country to ensure that we have a society that is cohesive and that is harmonious and that we don’t tolerate hatred? When we talk about that, we talk about the concrete steps that our government has done to ensure that – the doxing laws, the hate speech laws, standing up against racism in all its forms and expressing our contempt for hatred.

You know, I think it’s a very simplistic view to say that migrants come into Australia with a particular view and therefore that the whole situation that we’re talking about here around the increase of hatred is somehow linked to immigration.

TEHAN: But that’s not what we’re saying. We’re saying –

ALY: But it’s exactly what you just said.

TEHAN: We’re saying that is one component of it. We’ve also called for a proper National Cabinet meeting to address this issue, so it can be –

KARVELAS: Well, there was. There was one.

TEHAN: Yes, but it was one which wasn’t done with all the chief ministers, all the leaders there, you know, everyone coming to Canberra – a proper serious discussion as to how we address this.

KARVELAS: I have to bring our viewers on Afternoon Briefing here on the ABC News channel some breaking news: a Chinese fighter aircraft has released flares in front of an Australian military plane during what Defence describes as an unsafe and unprofessional interaction in the South China Sea this week. Officials have revealed the encounter occurred on Tuesday during daylight hours with the Peoples Liberation Army J-16 coming within 30 metres of the RAAF P-8 Poseidon. Defence says no personnel were injured and there was no damage to the P-8, but it has lodged formal objections with the PLA, both in Canberra and Beijing. So that’s just breaking news.

I am aware – and I always think, to be fair, you would just be hearing perhaps that news too. But just quick thoughts from you both. Obviously Defence has sent a pretty strong signal here that this is unacceptable.

TEHAN: And let’s see what sort of signal now the Prime Minister sends, because that’s what I think the Australian people will be waiting for and wanting to hear, what sort of strong signal and strong message now the Prime Minister sends. So, as we’ve seen, this is not the first time that this has occurred. So I think we will all watch with great interest to see how the Prime Minister responds to this, this act by the Chinese military.

KARVELAS: Anne Aly?

ALY: My first thought, of course, is relief that nobody was hurt and nobody was injured, Patricia. That’s my first – my first reaction to this news.

KARVELAS: Do you expect the Prime Minister will have strong words?

ALY: Absolutely. Absolutely. This is a pretty serious issue, and I absolutely expect that the Prime Minister will stand up for the Australian people, as he always has done.

KARVELAS: Now, there is another piece of breaking news, which is that your child care bill has just passed.

ALY: Yes.

KARVELAS: You know this?

ALY: Yes.

KARVELAS: Okay, what can you tell us?

ALY: So this is a great bill. It is good policy –

KARVELAS: This is the three day –

ALY: This is the Three Day Guarantee, 72 hours a fortnight for every child. What it basically does, Patricia, is it replaces the activity test, and parents out there who have tried to access subsidised care will know that they have to pass an activity test in order to be eligible to subsidise that care. It means that every child in Australia can now access those really transformative benefits of early childhood education and care. And it is good policy. It was recommended by the PC Review, a number of reviews, and has strong, strong support from across the sector. It’s a good day today for Australian children.

KARVELAS: It didn’t have to pass now, though, did it? I mean, it really could have happened after the election. Was it a political – is it a political play –

ALY: Well, no.

KARVELAS: – so you can talk about this at the election and say, “We got this through,” because it doesn’t start till next year, right?

ALY: That’s right. But, you know, it’s something that had strong support from the sector and it was a recommendation by the PC Review. You know, this is us taking action on things that we know are good policy, part of our reform package in early childhood education and care, getting to that place of a universal system that benefits every child.

KARVELAS: Dan Tehan, you are actually a former Education Minister so you are across these portfolios. I understand at the end the Liberals were not in favour of this change. But actually it is true that there has been a lot of research to say that this change should happen to get children to have the right to have these three days compulsory. Why didn’t you see it that way?

TEHAN: So just a question before, Patricia, I answer that question. So, are we talking about it just passing the House? Or –

KARVELAS: I think it just passed the House –

ALY: It passed the Senate – it’s in the Senate at the moment. So, I know – but it did pass the House earlier.

KARVELAS: It’s going back to – yeah.

TEHAN: Yeah, so it’s – just so your viewers are clear of where we’re at, it’s passed the House. It hasn’t passed the Senate, and it’s actually going to a Senate review which, as I understand it, will report in March. So this legislation –

ALY: I think they’re actually voting on it in the Senate.

KARVELAS: Yeah, my understanding is it’s passed the Parliament. But either way –

TEHAN: Right, okay.

KARVELAS: – I’ll let you continue with the broad political point.

ALY: Last I saw was they were voting on it.

TEHAN: So they are going to now go ahead? So this is sort of –

KARVELAS: So, you can still apparently do the inquiry even if the Bill’s passed.

TEHAN: Right, okay. All right. Well, there’s obviously been a change in the approach that the government’s taking as we’re speaking.

KARVELAS: Let me take you to first principles.

TEHAN: Yes, let’s go back to the Bill itself. We obviously wanted it to go to an inquiry. And the main concerns that we have with this Bill is that the actions that it’s taking, especially with regards to the activity test, without expanding the number of places, and especially the number of places in regional and rural areas, will basically mean for those people who are working or wanting to work, trying to get access to child care will become harder. And so that is one of the concerns that we have.

The second concern is that what we’ve seen with regards to costs under this government when it comes to child care is we’ve seen the costs go up by over 20 per cent. We’ve seen out-of-pocket expenses go up by over 10 per cent and nothing around this is addressing that issue, which obviously, with cost of living the number one issue, is of deep concern to us. So for those reasons and others is why we think that this Bill should have gone to a committee.

KARVELAS: Anne Aly?

ALY: Well, those figures are just wrong, Dan. The cost has come down. Out-of-pocket costs for families across Australia have come down. And in terms of access, yes, we know that access is one of those key areas of reform. That’s why we have a $1 billion Building Early Education Fund targeting those seats, those areas where there is no child – early childhood education or where there is little access to early childhood education and care.

So, you know, you’re talking to a government that’s able to chew gum and walk at the same time. We’re very well aware of all the key pieces of reform that are necessary in early childhood education and care, and only our government has that vision to ensure that every child has access and every child has access to quality, affordable early learning.

KARVELAS: I have to ask –

TEHAN: Anne, I was just going to say, your track record, sadly, doesn’t show that to be the case. So – and the problem here is that what we’re going to see is basically working people having to compete with new entrants now, and that’s going to cause even more trouble for you.

KARVELAS: Now, Dan Tehan, I just have to ask you, just to you before we say goodbye – we’ve had a great conversation; it might be the last day of the Parliament of this term. We don’t know. But it’s –

ALY: Don’t know.

KARVELAS: Well, you don’t know. We don’t know. So, it’s rather – we’re all on the edge of our seats. But I do have to ask you about – you’re a former Trade Minister as well. You’ve had a few hats, so you’re very helpful here. Was Australia so desperate to hang on to our tariff exemption with the US that we agreed to unofficial quotas?

TEHAN: No. No.

KARVELAS: Well, hang on a minute. That’s been reported that that’s what we agreed to. That’s what the US Government thinks.

TEHAN: So the arrangement was very clear. We were given an exemption, and obviously the US said to us that we wouldn’t want to see you exploit that exemption. And we had no intention of trying to exploit that exemption. The majority of our aluminium exports actually go into Asia, and that’s been a longstanding market for us.

KARVELAS: But did we agree to these, essentially, quotas that we didn’t publicise?

TEHAN: No, there was no – no, there was no quotas that weren’t publicised. So –

KARVELAS: But it was agreed to then?

TEHAN: Well, the idea – well, after the exemption, what the US wanted to make sure was all of a sudden our exports didn’t go from 10 per cent to 90 per cent. And obviously given that we were given an exemption we said that of course we’re going to make sure that that isn’t exploited, and it was never going to be exploited because the majority of our aluminium goes into our markets in the – in Asia.

KARVELAS: So that agreement, shouldn’t we know – shouldn’t we have known about it? Shouldn’t you have told the public? Because we didn’t know about it till now.

TEHAN: Well, it’s – there was no official agreement to tell the public about. I mean, the key thing here and the key thing that I would say to the Albanese Labor government is we worked very hard to be able to put an exemption in place which meant that our aluminium smelters here continued to be profitable and continued to be able to export aluminium into Asia, into the US.

KARVELAS: Okay.

TEHAN: My hope is that this government will be able to do exactly the same thing.

KARVELAS: Anne Aly?

ALY: Well, I think we’ve already proven as a government that we have the capacity, and we do the necessary actions to rebuild our international standing and rebuild our standing in terms of trade as well as diplomatic efforts, and I think the Australian people can be confident that this is a government that can, you know, deal with these issues. And in a transparent way.

TEHAN: And we hope so, yes.

KARVELAS: Well, the country hopes so. Thank you to both of you.

TEHAN: Pleasure.

KARVELAS: It’s been a good discussion.

ALY: Thanks, Patricia.