Anika Wells MP on ABC Afternoon Briefing

E&OE TRANSCRIPT
TELEVISION INTERVIEW
AFTERNOON BRIEFING
THURSDAY, 10 FEBRUARY 2022
 
SUBJECTS: Religious Discrimination Bill, Grace Tame/Brittany Higgins National Press Club address, Aged care crisis.
 
GREG JENNETT, HOST: Time now for further discussion on all that's played out in both the Reps and the Senate. Joining our political panel today we have Liberal Senator Eric Abetz and Labor MP Anika Wells. Bringing us, I'm sure, two different perspectives, but also coming from two different sides of the parliament here, politically, and as far as their respective chambers are concerned. Eric Abetz to you first of all, a week ago, almost, we spoke to you. And you were optimistic, speaking about crossing the floor being a last-resort option and compromise being the most likely outcome. That we have not seen. What we're watching today - is it retreated or capitulation on religious discrimination by your government? And I know this is dear to your heart, as an issue.

ERIC ABETZ, SENATOR FOR TASMANIA: Look, it's not capitulation by the government. When same-sex marriage went through, one of the quid-pro-quo statements made by both parties was that religious freedom would be guaranteed by legislation. Indeed, the then Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said he believed in same-sex marriage, just as much as religious freedom. And yesterday, the Labor Party were put to the test to deliver on that. And unfortunately, they failed. Sure, there were some of my colleagues that crossed the floor. But if Labor would have stuck to the basic policy in this regard, it would have flown through the House of Representatives, without the amendments that have now made it untenable.

JENNETT: There are certain people in your government using the phrase, “We will take the win”. The implication being that the passage of a Bill through Reps alone last night represents the fulfilment of a commitment to your constituency. That cannot be the way that you see it, as someone with real personal faith invested in this.

ABETZ: Oh, look. Somebody of a Muslim faith, Jewish faith, Christian faith, they were all promised legislation to protect them. And part and parcel of this debate has overlooked time and time again, the right of mums and dads, as is enshrined in international covenants, for them to be able to send the children to a school, with an ethos in line with their beliefs. And the parliament the other night, sought to deny that right to parents. It’s the mums and dads that have been missing in this equation. And if the school has an ethos which is not to your liking, you know what you can do in Australia? Not send your kids there. So, for example, a Muslim, one suspects wouldn't want to send their kids to a Christian school. And from a Christian perspective, I wouldn't seek to send my kids to a Muslim school. And that's the great freedom we have in Australia. And that's been denied.

JENNETT: All right Anika Wells, over to you then. The law of the land is unchanged and looks, I would suggest, unlikely to be changed now.

ANIKA WELLS, MEMBER FOR LILLEY: Certainly that’s what it looks like.

JENNETT:  So you walk away from this empty handed as well, despite many in your party professing your desire to see religious discrimination enshrined in law. Same question to you. How do you go back and explain that to your constituency? The fact that that Parliament was asked to do something and couldn't deliver?

WELLS: Well, Scott Morrison made a commitment, like Senator Abetz said, after the marriage-equality debate, more than three years ago now. But in fact, protections for people of faith have existed in different state legislatures and different countries for decades. In Queensland, we've had it since 1991. And those legislations have come to be without the kind of rancour and division and nastiness and chameleon-like redrafting and drafting of the bills that we have seen under Scott Morrison's leadership. So when it came to it last night, and when I actually say last night, I mean 4:50am this morning, it just wasn't in a form that enough people could accept. And five Liberals crossed the floor, and all of the crossbench supported Labor and our amendments to try and improve it. And even that wasn't enough.

JENNETT: Had the Senate carried on with this debate today, you could have got all or nothing. It now looks like you've got nothing. Is that, is that preferable?

WELLS: Well, it's the Senate. And again, it's the Liberal leadership under the Senate to determine what the Senate considers. It sounds like, from the other place, that they've chosen not to debate it today. So that is ultimately Scott Morrison's decision not to bring it on, test it with a vote on the floor of the Senate. My understanding is that there are Liberal senators who would cross the floor because it's in an untenable form. And that's for Scott Morrison to account for.

JENNETT: Are you satisfied yourself? You know, this goes to an argument of Michaelia Cash, the attorney general. That it was legally sound, that it didn't open up new grounds of unintended consequences and discrimination for groups like intersex students and breastfeeding parents?

WELLS: No, because the views from stakeholders being expressed up until 4:45am this morning was that ultimately, it was a pretty friendless bill. The form that it existed in by the time it got to the floor of the House for the test of the vote, it didn't have enough supporters. It didn't have many at all. So no, I don't think that it's a bad thing that a bill that needed substantial improvement, we did our best, but it still needed substantial improvement further and for Scott Morrison to choose to pull it all together. Well, that's on him to account for, why he can't uphold his promise

JENNETT: And authority of government, Eric Abetz, authority of Prime Minister. This was his commitment. Five Liberals splinter away, there's a lesson here isn't there? That you can't legislate from a position of weakness. And many will interpret what's happened here today as weakness in the Coalition and in the Prime Minister's leadership.

ABETZ: What people will see is the weakness of the Labor Party and having promised religious freedom legislation, that on block, they voted for amendments, knowing that it would be untenable.

WELLS: That’s not the case at all.

ABETZ: So this was a wonderful screen, that was a wonderful screen for them to try to say, we supported, but then deliberately voted for amendments, knowing that that will then derail the legislation. And so I find that a matter of great concern that the Parliament cannot unite on an issue as fundamental as this, especially protecting the mums and dads of those children that they have, to be able to send them to a school of their choice.

JENNETT: We don't know when you'll be back in the next Senate. That's in the lap of the voters now. But you can't be more confident that this would be dealt with in any way before the election by your current Senate. Can you?

ABETZ: It’d be highly unlikely in fairness.

JENNETT: And how does that sit with you? Leaving aside the political arguments of who's to blame? Is that a disappointment for you as a Liberal? That it wasn't put to the test by your side, today, in your chamber?

ABETZ: It was obvious that that which was emerging from the House of Representatives was completely unacceptable to the government. And would have undermined the promise made to the Australian people. And therefore, to have sent it up to the Senate would have prolonged the degree of pretence by the Labor Party. That they were in fact supporting something, which they were deliberately amending to ensure that it wouldn't be pursued any further. So this will be like a millstone around Labor's neck, come the election. Which Mr. Albanese will have to explain to the various faith communities, why he has not delivered on the promise.

JENNETT: Is that politically potent, Anika? Either in your part of the world, around Brisbane? Or, as we know from some of your Western Sydney colleagues, they believe it is. Eric Abetz is saying it's a millstone electorally. Why wouldn't it be?

WELLS: I think that's a fairly drastic mischaracterization of what Anthony Albanese has managed to pull off overnight. There was a lot of anticipation, criticism about the strategy that Labor chose. It was a fine line to walk, which we chose to walk until 4:50am this morning. But ultimately, I do think that Parliament should be bipartisan. And bills like this, that are important, that are about fundamental human rights, should be able to bring everybody together. But this bill didn't do that. And the amendments that we tried to move were designed for someone like me, trying to represent the northern suburbs of Brisbane. School kids there should not be discriminated against on the basis of whom their mothers choose to love. And a woman wearing a hijab should not fear being spat on in the street. So we drafted amendments designed to protect them both. And ultimately, that's what we put up to the Senate and the government's chosen to withdraw the bill.

ABETZ: Look, in relation to a person being spat on in the street, you know that that is against the law, fundamentally, irrespective of whether you are wearing a hijab or not. And so let's not have this pretence that the amendments being moved by Labor yesterday and early this morning, were in some way designed to improve this bill. The Labor Party, especially in some of these seats, where faith communities actually voted no to same-sex marriage. They kept these seats last time on the promise of delivering religious freedom legislation and to a man and woman, they have voted to ensure that does not happen. And I trust their electorates will hold them to account.

JENNETT: So that goes back to the earlier question I put to you, Eric Abetz. You almost, as you put that argument to Anika, sound like this is a win. Politically, you think you can take this stalemate and that's my word for it, that stalemate. You think you can take that to the electorate as a net positive for your pitch to voters?

ABETZ: It is one of those extremely sad things, that it's come to this. That the Labor Party has been so political in trying to damage the Prime Minister. And that's all it was about. The Prime Minister had made a promise. He sought to deliver on it. Labor had made a very similar promise, and they deliberately reneged to try to damage him. But I think it will badly backfire on the Labor Party as it should, and Labor deserves the backfire.

JENNETT: All right…

WELLS: Labor is under no obligation to pull the Prime Minister out of messes of his own political making. And if the Prime Minister could not, after three and a half years, draft a bill that had enough support of stakeholders outside the House and people within the House, then that is on him.

ABETZ: Lots of support for this bill. Let's be very clear. The bill had been through the Human Rights Committee of the Parliament, the Senate's Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee of the Parliament, and Labor's last-minute amendments clearly weren't through that committee process. And it was a deliberate act to try to sabotage. They achieved that, but I think they've done the country a great disservice.

JENNETT: I do want to ask a couple of other things about the week,

WELLS: We’re just getting started.

JENNETT: About the about the rest of the week. But just to wrap this one up, you are quite dismissive Senator Abetz, about the five Liberals who crossed the floor. Which in other circumstances, let's face it, could be the downfall of a government. Not on this occasion. It's very serious stuff.

ABETZ: No, the big difference is that we in the Liberal Party have always allowed that. And I have no doubt that there are many people in the Australian Labor Party that today, are very disappointed with their party. But if they were to speak publicly about it, or vote with the government on these issues, there would be automatic expulsion. And that's the big difference between Liberal and Labor. We allow that flexibility and exercise of conscience. The Labor Party does not. And if there would have been a genuine free vote in the parliament, I've no doubt the legislation would have been carried.

JENNETT: You were just, you’d never wanted a conscience vote…

WELLS: I…I…right of reply. Right of reply, Greg.

JENNETT: Yeah, was this a fit for a conscience vote? Which is essentially what Senator Abetz is suggesting.

WELLS: Labor's discipline and unity on this demonstrates our ability to work as a team. Five Liberal moderates crossing the floor at 4:50am this morning. In addition to the five Liberal National Senators that crossed the floor on Pauline Hansen's anti-vax mandates bill last time we were in this place, demonstrate what a complete disarray, disunited team the rabble of the Morrison government is.

ABETZ: It is very easy to achieve when you know that you're going to be expelled from your party and as a result from the parliament. So don't pretend that this is some sort of unity.

WELLS: It is exactly that.

ABETZ: This is enforced, it is enforced discipline…

JENNETT: Alright, lets.

ABETZ: denying people that capacity to represent their electorate.

JENNETT: Alright, let's leave the party rules debate respectively, to one side right now. And just, it is a week in which values have been very much to the fore. whether it's in the context of religious discrimination, or 24 hours ago, Anika Wells, you found yourself at the National Press Club, where Grace Tame and Brittany Higgins gave addresses. Grace Tame, among many things said there, made an accusation about political threats to silence her. How did that sit with you then? And do you think it's been appropriately responded to or dealt with by the government subsequently?

WELLS: I think getting to sit in that room and listen to Grace Tame and Brittany Higgins speak was one of many reasons why this is the best job that I will ever have. It was an electrifying experience. And she certainly did not hold back in her fire. But I think she's earned the right, after everything that she has been through and the year that she has had as Australian of the Year, she has the right to speak her truth. That is why she was made Australian of the Year in the first place.

JENNETT: But to leave it hanging, no names, no pack drill. We just got that it was a threat from an official within a funded government or government-funded organisation.

WELLS: Why does she owe us all more details than she's prepared to share?

JENNETT: Mmm-hmm, Eric Abetz?

ABETZ: Oh, look, what I think the great message from both Grace and Brittany is that everybody deserves respect and should be treated with respect. And of course, how do we engender that within our community? By treating everybody else that we come into contact with the appropriate respect. And so we're I think that has to be that message. And it appears that somebody and I don't like making these accusations until or supporting accusations until we know all the facts. But what is believed to have occurred, is that there may have been some overzealous official in a certain body of which the Prime Minister and others there was no political interference.

JENNETT: That’s the best you can define, that it was someone freelancing. Do you believe?

ABETZ: That is from all the evidence, on face value, as Grace Tame has put it. Then that's the situation. So to try to put that onto the Prime Minister or anybody else is yet again, the sort of politics that I think the vast majority of Australians don't like.

JENNETT: Alright, and look just finally another problem, which is sad and in some ways intractable or has been so far in the pandemic. That is aged care. Seems an eternity ago now Anika Wells, that the Prime Minister stood up. It was in fact, only Monday – an eternity ago. The Prime Minister stood up and said, “Yes, up to 1700 members of the Defence Force will go in”. Presumably, some of those have begun to arrive. What are you hearing from the sector? And I know there’s troubles in, in and around homes, in your electorate. Has anything improved in the short term?

WELLS: No. And at this point, I just can't see anything the Prime Minister touches that isn't a steaming bin fire. What we've been talking about this afternoon, even the goings on in Parliament, the loss of control of the parliament and the Prime Minister’s pet legislation, is distracting us from the defence force being sent into aged care. And that being the new normal, when…

JENNETT: Do you support the actual deployment?

WELLS: Well, I do because of the state it’s in. But I rue 20 years of structural neglect that has led us to this place. And we are spending our time in the parliament with what is it? Eight? Seven days left?

JENNETT: For the Reps, yes. It's less for these guys.

WELLS: I’ve been up a long time. That we are spending our time on these kinds of bills that are then pulled, without even being put through both Houses to test. Instead of legislation to improve wages and conditions for aged care workers. I mean this is a sector that is now going to have 400,000 workers…we need 400,000 additional workers by 2050.

JENNETT: There’s a lot of empty shifts.

WELLS: And wages are about 22 bucks an hour. You earn more at Bunnings. Why aren't we doing anything about it with seven days left to go in the parliament?

JENNETT: Eric, Erica Abetz you’re running out of time here

ABETZ: Let's be very…no, no, no, let's be very clear here. Government does not fix wages in Australia. Who fixes wages? Fair Work Australia. Who established Fair Work Australia? The Australian Labor Party. So what Anika Wells is telling the Australian people is, that Labor no longer has confidence in the independent umpire that sets wages. And that the unions that have been putting up the arguments to Fair Work Australia, have been an absolute failure

JENNETT: And who should pay if Fair Work Australia does its job and awards a pay increase there on the aged care sector?

ABETZ: Well then clearly, that will have to be addressed by the government. And look, let me…

JENNETT: In full, in part?

ABETZ: Let me be clear, I think aged care workers are low paid workers. And I think there could be a case made out. But at the end of the day, we have independent umpires determining these things as a result of submissions. And we as parliamentarians shouldn't be poking the Fair Work Commission or any other judicial or semi-judicial body, telling them how to go about their business. Because if we do, we might as well get rid of the independent umpire, set up by Labor. And Labor have been telling us don't interfere with Fair Work Australia or its decisions. When we don't, what do they do? They blame us for it? You can't have it both ways.

JENNETT: Okay.

WELLS: Senator Abetz’s argument would hold more water if Senator Mathias Cormann hadn't given the game away by saying that low wages were a deliberate design feature of his own economy. He really belled the cat on that one.

JENNETT: Okay, let's take on an IR discussion at another time in a pretty fluid situation for the current parliament. We're going to thank both of you for making the time. Bells permitting. Eric Abetz, Tasmanian Senator and Anika Wells, Labor MP from Queensland.

ENDS