November 16, 2022 • 27 mins
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Listenlive at Tasmania Talks dot com dot au.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
On the line.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
Right now we have the Federal member for bass bridget
Arn't you Good morning?
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Hello Aaron?
Speaker 1 (00:10):
How are you? I'm all right, Tom, all right? Where
are you calling for? Well, we're calling you, but where
are you at the moment? Are you in Tasmania? Are
you on the mainland.
Speaker 2 (00:17):
I am at beautiful Bridport this morning. Got a bit
of a morning up in the northeast today, So talking
to you from Bridport where it's amazing. If if anyone's
got the day off, head to Bridport, it's amazing.
Speaker 1 (00:32):
It's a good spot to be blue skies we've got
I've got a few clouds, but it's looking good. Tell
you what before I'd move on. Just something that's come
through just a while ago. You may or may not
be able to fix this. I don't know what your
what your connections are like. We had a lady called Fiona.
She called and she's in public housing and she has
no stove. Is this your department? Can you fix this
for her?
Speaker 2 (00:53):
Well? I can certainly have a guy.
Speaker 3 (00:54):
If it's not my department, department, I probably know the
person who's department. When it is y Cionner would like
to ring my office six double three four seven zero
double three and we'll see what.
Speaker 2 (01:09):
We can do to help.
Speaker 1 (01:10):
She's got the turkey already to go, but she reckons
she's not going to even be able to cook it
by Christmas, which is a worry. So she's been promised
and promised for this damn stove and it hasn't eventuated.
Apparently they're waiting for it to come from the mainland.
Don't we have stoves in Tasmania.
Speaker 2 (01:25):
You think we might?
Speaker 1 (01:26):
Yeah, it's a bit of it.
Speaker 2 (01:27):
Yeah, give us a call, we'll if we can help
you out there.
Speaker 1 (01:30):
We go look at that. Maybe we've fixed that. Parliament
is resuming very soon. You're looking forward to it?
Speaker 2 (01:36):
Ah? Yeah, back to Back to Canberra next week for
the final two sitting weeks of the year, and still
quite a bit ahead of us for the rest of
the year. Notably, and of the interest in particular to me,
will be the introduction of the legislation for a Federal
and Corruption Commission.
Speaker 1 (01:57):
What do you think of the new model which is
under the old model with a few changes that have
got a few people riled up. What's your thoughts?
Speaker 2 (02:06):
Yeah, look, I think overall it's it's a pretty good bill.
I think that there will be you know, some and
the committee report that has come back has really achieved
sort of generally multi party support, which is very important.
And I've always said that we have to have an
anti corruption commission that is not political. You know, as
(02:29):
soon as it becomes politicized, then it's failed at the
first test because people can't trust it. So it's important
that you know, it's broadly accepted, and it does seem
that we have a model that has that broad support.
There will be some you know, arguing around the edges.
I think around things like public hearings, for example, that's
(02:52):
the sticking.
Speaker 1 (02:53):
What do you think about that? What's your what's your opinion?
Speaker 2 (02:57):
Well, I think it is critically important that there is
a capacity for the Commission to hold public hearings, which
there is in the current bill. I think that in
my view, this idea of exceptional circumstances might be going
a bit too far, and I think that my preference
(03:18):
would be that that public hearings are conducted in the
public interest. So I think those will be the types
of the debate that will expect to see in the
next week or so as that legislation comes through.
Speaker 1 (03:32):
Do you risk upsetting your side of politics by saying
that out loud? Well, been there, done that already. Yeah, Okay, it's.
Speaker 2 (03:42):
Not no one. Their votes for me. The people who
vote for me a right here in Northern Tasmania, and
it's always my job to try and put their interest first.
Speaker 1 (03:51):
That's how it goes. Do you think Peter Dutton and
crew will vote for this if that exceptional circumstances for
public hearings is scrapped out of the bill?
Speaker 2 (04:03):
Look, I think that they're trying to do and they're
not alone on this. In fact, the government is also
in favor of the exceptional circumstances clause. And I can
see that what they are trying to do is to
provide some layers of protection for people's personal reputation, and
that's important as well. And we have seen some terrible
(04:25):
outcomes at times out of these sort of bodies, where
people are falsely accused or are later found to have
been cleared, but they have had reputational damage on the
way through. And there's some very tragic stories of people
self harming and suiciding as a result of these anti
corruption bodies. So it is important to make sure that
(04:47):
there are protections for people, and I am confident that
within the legislation there are some layers of protection to
guard against that. But I can see that that's what
they're trying to do. Additionally with the exceptional circumstances. But
my view is that that's a bit of a step
too far and not necessarily necessary, because the discretion will
(05:11):
sit with the commissioner to make it, to make it that
weather in the public interest anyway.
Speaker 1 (05:16):
Yep, it's hard to get that balance, right. I guess
if you completely make it private and secret, I guess
then you run the risk that once something begins, if
somebody outside of the system doesn't know that something is
going on, if they've got information to add to a
certain investigation, they won't know that they even should be
speaking up. If that makes sense, I.
Speaker 2 (05:39):
Think, yes, that's right. But I think it's also about
the public having trust in the institution itself. They want
to be able to say that it's as transparent as
possible and has that accountability, and that's important, but there
are also other ways to achieve that, and in this case,
there'll be a commissioner, an inspector, there's parliamentary oversight, and
(06:02):
I think the really important part is that the legislation
will be subject to a review in five years time,
so it will give a chance for it to begin
its work and to then be reviewed and see where
those gaps or things might be. So I think all
(06:23):
of those safeguards are important.
Speaker 1 (06:25):
What does Helen Haynes think of the thing? Because she's
been working on this for years. Is she happy with
the final result? Now?
Speaker 2 (06:32):
I think, you know, And I can't speak obviously for Helen,
but I work quite quite closely with her, and you know,
I think she shares some of the concerns that I
have around exceptional circumstances, for example, and the other sort
of critical piece of the puzzle, which sits outside of
(06:54):
the legislation itself under some other legislation, but which I
understand may come for as well, and is a particular
concern of Helen's and of mine, is around protection for
whistle blowers as well. People need to have confidence that
if they come forward to give information about corruption, for example,
(07:16):
that they are that they are protected in doing that,
and we do not currently have strong protections for whistle blowers,
so that's also important.
Speaker 1 (07:25):
Part we take them to court, don't we That's what
we do with whistle blowers. At the moment, it's I'm
not sure how you can change that.
Speaker 2 (07:32):
Well, I think you need to have protections because otherwise
people don't don't come forward, and then if they're not
coming forward, then the Commission is not able to do
to do its job.
Speaker 1 (07:43):
Do you think people generally there's a horrible question to ask,
but do people generally think that politicians are corrupt? What
do you reckon?
Speaker 2 (07:52):
I don't know that people think that they're corrupt, and
you know, all the evidence shows that corruption and genuine
corruption is at low levels in Australia. But I think
that there's a whole sort of spectrum of behavior that
people consider, you know, to be lacking in integrity all
(08:13):
the way through to corruption. And I think it's fair
to say that people you know don't rate politicians as
the most trusted profession going around. And I think that's
both disappointing but also it's it's very important to change
it because we need communities to have trust and confidence
(08:35):
in elected officials and public officials because we often have
to give them really important information. I think the pandemic
has demonstrated that that. You know, if people don't have
trust and confidence in their elected officials, you know that
they're not they're not going to have confidence in the
information that's been provided as well. So it's all very
(08:58):
very important.
Speaker 1 (08:59):
I think a case of the moment because some of
what they're saying doesn't really make sense. But anyway, it's
the politics is becoming too apparent rather than the health
I think, And I.
Speaker 2 (09:11):
Think people want to have trust and confidence, you know,
in the people that they represent, and certainly as an
elected representative, I want people to have trust and confidence
in me so that we can help, you know. That's
the bottom line.
Speaker 1 (09:29):
Yeah, that's it. Well, we've had lots of people that have, yeah,
added to that list of people that can't be trusted.
I suppose over the years, people that have been found guilty,
the EDIO beads and all those. I guess that just
reinforces it. The workplace bill, that's another one that labor
are hoping to get through. They've got a lot of
stuff to get through in a pretty short length of time.
How do you reckon that's going?
Speaker 2 (09:51):
Look, I think they've still got a bit of work
to do in the Senate and certainly I know Senator
Lamby and Senator Heill have some concerns, as does Senator Pocop,
and you know that that will be debated, I imagine
in the Senate in these next next few weeks. I
think that you know, the government and I spoke when
(10:14):
I spoke on it in the House. You know, whilst
I think everybody supports the aims of the bill to
create more secure work and increase pay for people, nobody
would would argue with that. I think it is important
to make sure that you take your time and get
the balance right with some of those things and try
(10:34):
to avoid any unintended consequences as well.
Speaker 1 (10:39):
What do you see as an unintended consequence? What risks
are here?
Speaker 2 (10:44):
Look, I think that there are risks in relation to
additional pressures on particularly small business, and that seems to
be one of the particular sticking points that people have
consistently raised in opposition to the bill. At a time
when obviously the economy is quite challenged. It's a difficult
(11:05):
space for workers but also for businesses as well. And
you know, I wouldn't want to see in a situation
where as I said in my speech, you know, if
you achieve higher wages, but you don't have a job
that can probably conserves out.
Speaker 1 (11:22):
Is it the definition of what a small business is
as according to the bill? Is that the problem? Because
I think at the moment it's twenty five staff and
I think David Pocock is arguing that they should be higher.
What do you reckon they?
Speaker 2 (11:35):
I think that's right, and I think it's an additional
burden on businesses that you know, don't have often a
capacity to cope with more a greater regulatory burden for example.
So yeah, I think the size of small business and
that was an issue that was consistently raised in the
(11:56):
debate in the Lower House as well as well as
things like the multiplayer bargaining, and they seem to be
some of the more contentious points that I think, certainly
send a Pocock and others are now turning their mind
to with.
Speaker 1 (12:10):
Only I think it's forteen percent of people in Australia
in a union. Would it really becomes as you guys
are saying, not you guys but the Liberal Party, you know,
like a mass striking event. I mean, it's not likely
to get to that, is it.
Speaker 2 (12:27):
Look, I would hope not I would hope not I would.
I don't think about it. It would be necessarily, you know,
in anyone's best interest to see more sort of strike
action and things like that. You know, unions play an
important role, and I'm not going to go out bashing unions.
(12:48):
You know, I see the good work that that unions
do do for works in our community. And as I
was sat in my own speech, you know, I've worked
in casual and to work all of my all of
my working life, mostly in hospitality, and no, I do
understand that challenge both as a worker and also you
(13:11):
know the challenges that small business owners face as well.
You know, it's not an fix, and it's important to
get on and do that work, but you know it
needs to be done diligently and in good faith.
Speaker 1 (13:23):
In my opinion, I keep seeing graphs everywhere and it
sort of shows the amount of money that companies are
making versus the amount of money that people are taking home.
And I wonder whether these graphs are skewed somehow because
of well, the gas would be one that would would
come to mind straight away. But there's a lot of
really big companies making a lot of money. Are they
(13:44):
skewing this sort of thing. Do you think small businesses
are in a position to pay more? I suppose that's
the question.
Speaker 2 (13:50):
Yes, I mean, I think there's such a lot of
variability amongst businesses, the size of the businesses, the sectors
they operate in, you know, so it's not a it's
not a homogeneous landscape, and so of course that makes
it difficult to make policies to fit everyone, you know,
because they're not all all the same. But of course,
(14:12):
businesses at the moment, like everybody else, like all all
of the population, are having increased costs as well, you know, uh,
and supply issues, and we're still sort of feeling the
effects of the pandemic as much as anything else. So
it's a it's a difficult time. And I think to add,
(14:34):
you know, additional layers of regulation on top of some
of those quite small businesses might be the straw that
bakes the camel's back, and that that's the type of
thing that I think we just need to be mindful
of as we go through. It's not to say that
you shouldn't do shouldn't do things. You just have to,
you know, make sure that you're listening and adjusting as
(14:57):
you go. If if something comes up, you haven'tained just.
Speaker 1 (15:01):
Trying and foresee all of things. Something else that I
looked at just a while ago, and it's a bit
of a worry. It's in the news in regards to
COP twenty seven in Egypt, which is just finished up,
and they've got a Climate Change Performance Index which apparently
ranks countries as far as their climate change. We're ranked
(15:23):
fifty five out of a list of sixty three, and
which is pretty bad, mainly because of our obsession with
developing new colon gas projects. What's your opinion on that?
I mean, we're doing this forty three percent that the
government keep talking about is probably at the low end
of what's necessary. But we have this obsession with colon gas.
(15:46):
How can we stop that? How can we get around that?
Speaker 2 (15:49):
Well, I suppose my opinion would be it's not going
to get any easier to deal with it. The longer
you take to deal with it. You know, the problems
aren't going to persist, and it'll probably get harder to
deal with if you don't make steps forward to address that,
to transition, to take the action that you need to make.
(16:12):
So yes, I mean, we all accept that we have
had and to continue to have, you know, a reliance
on coal and gas were export colon gas and other resources,
and and all of that is well and good, but
you need to start to take those steps to to
(16:34):
do what you can to address this global climate challenge
that we all that we all face, and Australia has
to play its path in that along with the rest
of the world. And we can't continue to just kind
of kick the can down the road because the climates
emergency will get worse and the problem of transition will
(16:56):
not get any easier the longer you delay.
Speaker 1 (17:00):
We keep hearing this, I quote ten years of inaction,
surrounded by people who were involved in that ten years
of inaction. Is it hard to say that out loud?
Speaker 2 (17:13):
Yeah? Look, I mean, as I said, you know, I
never shy away from a difficult conversation, and I have
been quite open and on the record previously as saying,
you know, I think that we need to do more.
I think we should have already have done more. But
we shouldn't wait now to begin. We shouldn't be you know,
we shouldn't be looking backwards either, you know, I think
(17:35):
that's not necessarily helpful, true or otherwise, you know, it's
just not helpful. What we need to do is start
now and take the action that's required to urgently address
this issue.
Speaker 1 (17:49):
Have you got any ideas as far as what we
can do from right now?
Speaker 2 (17:53):
Well, I think we can. What we need to do
is start by you know, and we've talked about before,
put the climate wars aside, stopped talking about the ideology
of it. I think we need to accept and have
broad acceptance of the problem. And if there's debate to
be had, then, you know, maybe it's on how we
get there, but not on where we're going. And I
(18:14):
think we're still arguing about where we should be going.
And I think it's time to put that aside and
be able to come to the discussion in a pragmatic,
solutions driven way, you know, across the political device, if
your life, because you know that caravan has moved on
and the world just cannot wait for our action.
Speaker 1 (18:38):
You sounding like a Greenie. I was going to say,
you're in the wrong party. I don't know how I
keep saying that, brigid Actia. You're in the wrong party.
I'm not sure where you fit in there. You don't
fit into any of them, do you, well.
Speaker 2 (18:48):
It's interesting, you know that I sort of have also
previously said, you know, the care for the environment is
actually in the Liberal Party's statement of beliefs. You know
that we care for the environment for future generations. So
I think it holds absolutely to those values. And that's
(19:08):
not necessarily inconsistent with business and industry. And I think
that it's amits to suggest that that it is. And
in fact, business and industry are doing more than government
when it comes to looking at how they can can transition,
including here in Tasmania. You know, people like Belvale Aluminium
(19:31):
for example. You know, they are miles ahead in terms
of looking at their you know, their carbon reduction plans
and things like that. So it's not inconsistent. And I
think that's what I mean about the climate laws and
the ideology. You know, it's not it's not an either
(19:53):
or proposition. You know, it is possible to support jobs,
to support business and industry, and to look after the
environment and decarbonize at the same time.
Speaker 1 (20:04):
We can have it all with power prices going up,
inflation about to hit. How do you reckon? Christmas is
going to look for the average person in Bass. Hopefully,
hopefully Fiona will have a stove. But for the rest
of us, how do you reckon that's going to look?
Speaker 2 (20:20):
Yeah, look, I think it's already a difficult time for
many people right across the country, and here in Northern
Tasmania no different, you know. And I'm sort of talking
to people every day and hearing stories about how they
are already sort of having disability coping. We really still
(20:41):
have this very urgent housing issue and terrible stories of
people living in really terrible conditions, and more needs to
be done to address that issue as well as those
broader cost of living issues.
Speaker 1 (21:01):
And you know, should the federal government be doing more
the state government? Every time they talk about the lack
of housing and people living in cars and people living
in the park and stuff. Whenever they start talking, it
always starts with in months or years. It's never instant.
We need something fairly instant. Is the federal government do
you think able to deliver something quicker than what the
(21:23):
state keeps suggesting.
Speaker 2 (21:26):
I think it's part of the challenge is that it
is very difficult to obviously, you know, build houses, more houses,
increase supply, you know, at the snap of your fingers.
That obviously does take time. But I think that's cold
comfort to somebody who's currently sleeping with their family and a.
Speaker 1 (21:44):
Can New South Wales government, New South Wales government I
saw on TV had a stack of pods they called them.
They were just basically transportable houses. I suppose why are
we not looking at something like that?
Speaker 2 (21:58):
Yeah, look, I think it's a good question. And you know,
I think there needs to be a view to short
and medium and longer term solutions. And I think government
has certainly turned its mind to the longer term solutions
and maybe some of the medium term solutions. But I
think that there does need to be some greater work
(22:19):
done on some of those short term solutions. And it's
not just as simple as putting somebody in a you know,
in a pod or whatever. People have got, you know,
different family circumstances, and I think importantly you still need
to make sure that people are afforded you know, human
(22:39):
bignessy and and other supports that they need as.
Speaker 1 (22:44):
Well to I know, I know if people are living
in the park and living in caves, that's that's probably
that's not human dignity at all. That's just horrible, No,
it's not.
Speaker 2 (22:55):
But I think you know, the solution is not necessarily,
you know, just to put them somewhere to set and forget,
if you know what I mean. Like I think that
there needs to be we need to find a short
term accommodation options for people, but we also, in my view,
need to provide additional sort of resourcing for those other supports,
(23:19):
social supports and other things that people need because they're
often vulnerable not just due to lack of housing, but
also a whole range of other things former di stability,
domestic violence. It needs to be more of that support
as well.
Speaker 1 (23:38):
Each person's got a story. But I'm hearing more and
more people that are actually working living in their cars,
and you know what I mean, They're not the traditional
people that you would think of when you think of
a homeless person. They're people who are going to school,
they're going to work, but there's nowhere to live, so
they're in their cars. It's a worry. Chris andy Pass
I took to him a while ago on here from
(24:00):
Ussie Homelands, and he was saying that probably by about
Christmas is when we're going to see the first wave
of people falter on their mortgages because the interest rates
have gone up, and he reckons. Just before Christmas or
around Christmas is about when it's going to kick in
and people are going to actually have to just get
out of their houses. So this problem in the next
month or so may actually get worse.
Speaker 2 (24:22):
Yes, I think it's been something of a bit of
a perfect storm in terms of availability of housing, intrast
rates going up, other cost of living pressures, and a
whole range of sort of things impacting. I would say
to people, anybody that's listening that he's got any concerns
about that, for example, you know, don't leave it to
(24:43):
reach out for help as well, you know, reach out
to your financial institutions, reach out to your utility companies,
all of those sorts of things. Like the sooner that
you can get ahead of it, you know people are
there to help st just don't leave it too late,
I think would be my advice to people.
Speaker 1 (25:04):
There's a lot of people. Right at the end, just
before I let you go, I've just had a message
put through here from Richard's in the other room doing stuff.
He's saying that apparently counsels in New South Wales are
looking at three D printed houses. Have you ever heard
of those?
Speaker 2 (25:19):
I have heard of this, Yes, and some of the
tiny house options as well, you know, so they are
not necessarily a long term solution for people. But I
do think that we need to be more creative and
more innovative in finding, you know, and implementing short term solutions,
(25:42):
emergency solutions for people while we're building new housing stock
and those sorts of things, which is all great, but
people who are living in their tents now can't wait, can't.
Speaker 1 (25:52):
Wait for the long term solutions. Absolutely. Yeah, So Richard
just said that apparently there's a bunch of them or
a couple of them in Dubbo at the moment. They
must be pretty new. So I don't know how you
three D printer house. I can't picture it, but obviously
it can be done. How interesting, Bridget Archer. I'll let
you get back to whatever it was you're doing. What
are you going to be doing this morning? You're going
to be just looking back at the ocean at the
(26:15):
beach there or what are you going to be doing?
Speaker 2 (26:16):
Well, that would be very nice, and I have enjoyed
looking at that view while I've been.
Speaker 1 (26:22):
Talking, sitting there looking at bridge for a beach.
Speaker 2 (26:24):
Yes i am, but I'm headed off to to brank
home first and then back to Scott's. I've got a
few meetings, but I will be doing a mobile office
from about twelve thirty outside the Cottage Bakery at Scott Stars.
So anyone up there wants to come and say hello,
Ha's got an issue like with their stoves? You owly
(26:48):
come down and see me. I'll be happy to have
a chat.
Speaker 1 (26:50):
Come and have a winge to bridget Archer. Excellent stuff, yeah,
she said, signed, Come winge, winge complain here bridget Winging
welcome lcally you come with your gripes. Bridget Archer, Federal
Member for Best. Thanks for your time this morning. It's
been terrific, no worries talking. Listen live at Tasmania Talks
dot com dot au
Listenlive at Tasmania Talks dot com dot au.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
On the line.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
Right now we have the Federal member for bass bridget
Arn't you Good morning?
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Hello Aaron?
Speaker 1 (00:10):
How are you? I'm all right, Tom, all right? Where
are you calling for? Well, we're calling you, but where
are you at the moment? Are you in Tasmania? Are
you on the mainland.
Speaker 2 (00:17):
I am at beautiful Bridport this morning. Got a bit
of a morning up in the northeast today, So talking
to you from Bridport where it's amazing. If if anyone's
got the day off, head to Bridport, it's amazing.
Speaker 1 (00:32):
It's a good spot to be blue skies we've got
I've got a few clouds, but it's looking good. Tell
you what before I'd move on. Just something that's come
through just a while ago. You may or may not
be able to fix this. I don't know what your
what your connections are like. We had a lady called Fiona.
She called and she's in public housing and she has
no stove. Is this your department? Can you fix this
for her?
Speaker 2 (00:53):
Well? I can certainly have a guy.
Speaker 3 (00:54):
If it's not my department, department, I probably know the
person who's department. When it is y Cionner would like
to ring my office six double three four seven zero
double three and we'll see what.
Speaker 2 (01:09):
We can do to help.
Speaker 1 (01:10):
She's got the turkey already to go, but she reckons
she's not going to even be able to cook it
by Christmas, which is a worry. So she's been promised
and promised for this damn stove and it hasn't eventuated.
Apparently they're waiting for it to come from the mainland.
Don't we have stoves in Tasmania.
Speaker 2 (01:25):
You think we might?
Speaker 1 (01:26):
Yeah, it's a bit of it.
Speaker 2 (01:27):
Yeah, give us a call, we'll if we can help
you out there.
Speaker 1 (01:30):
We go look at that. Maybe we've fixed that. Parliament
is resuming very soon. You're looking forward to it?
Speaker 2 (01:36):
Ah? Yeah, back to Back to Canberra next week for
the final two sitting weeks of the year, and still
quite a bit ahead of us for the rest of
the year. Notably, and of the interest in particular to me,
will be the introduction of the legislation for a Federal
and Corruption Commission.
Speaker 1 (01:57):
What do you think of the new model which is
under the old model with a few changes that have
got a few people riled up. What's your thoughts?
Speaker 2 (02:06):
Yeah, look, I think overall it's it's a pretty good bill.
I think that there will be you know, some and
the committee report that has come back has really achieved
sort of generally multi party support, which is very important.
And I've always said that we have to have an
anti corruption commission that is not political. You know, as
(02:29):
soon as it becomes politicized, then it's failed at the
first test because people can't trust it. So it's important
that you know, it's broadly accepted, and it does seem
that we have a model that has that broad support.
There will be some you know, arguing around the edges.
I think around things like public hearings, for example, that's
(02:52):
the sticking.
Speaker 1 (02:53):
What do you think about that? What's your what's your opinion?
Speaker 2 (02:57):
Well, I think it is critically important that there is
a capacity for the Commission to hold public hearings, which
there is in the current bill. I think that in
my view, this idea of exceptional circumstances might be going
a bit too far, and I think that my preference
(03:18):
would be that that public hearings are conducted in the
public interest. So I think those will be the types
of the debate that will expect to see in the
next week or so as that legislation comes through.
Speaker 1 (03:32):
Do you risk upsetting your side of politics by saying
that out loud? Well, been there, done that already. Yeah, Okay, it's.
Speaker 2 (03:42):
Not no one. Their votes for me. The people who
vote for me a right here in Northern Tasmania, and
it's always my job to try and put their interest first.
Speaker 1 (03:51):
That's how it goes. Do you think Peter Dutton and
crew will vote for this if that exceptional circumstances for
public hearings is scrapped out of the bill?
Speaker 2 (04:03):
Look, I think that they're trying to do and they're
not alone on this. In fact, the government is also
in favor of the exceptional circumstances clause. And I can
see that what they are trying to do is to
provide some layers of protection for people's personal reputation, and
that's important as well. And we have seen some terrible
(04:25):
outcomes at times out of these sort of bodies, where
people are falsely accused or are later found to have
been cleared, but they have had reputational damage on the
way through. And there's some very tragic stories of people
self harming and suiciding as a result of these anti
corruption bodies. So it is important to make sure that
(04:47):
there are protections for people, and I am confident that
within the legislation there are some layers of protection to
guard against that. But I can see that that's what
they're trying to do. Additionally with the exceptional circumstances. But
my view is that that's a bit of a step
too far and not necessarily necessary, because the discretion will
(05:11):
sit with the commissioner to make it, to make it that
weather in the public interest anyway.
Speaker 1 (05:16):
Yep, it's hard to get that balance, right. I guess
if you completely make it private and secret, I guess
then you run the risk that once something begins, if
somebody outside of the system doesn't know that something is
going on, if they've got information to add to a
certain investigation, they won't know that they even should be
speaking up. If that makes sense, I.
Speaker 2 (05:39):
Think, yes, that's right. But I think it's also about
the public having trust in the institution itself. They want
to be able to say that it's as transparent as
possible and has that accountability, and that's important, but there
are also other ways to achieve that, and in this case,
there'll be a commissioner, an inspector, there's parliamentary oversight, and
(06:02):
I think the really important part is that the legislation
will be subject to a review in five years time,
so it will give a chance for it to begin
its work and to then be reviewed and see where
those gaps or things might be. So I think all
(06:23):
of those safeguards are important.
Speaker 1 (06:25):
What does Helen Haynes think of the thing? Because she's
been working on this for years. Is she happy with
the final result? Now?
Speaker 2 (06:32):
I think, you know, And I can't speak obviously for Helen,
but I work quite quite closely with her, and you know,
I think she shares some of the concerns that I
have around exceptional circumstances, for example, and the other sort
of critical piece of the puzzle, which sits outside of
(06:54):
the legislation itself under some other legislation, but which I
understand may come for as well, and is a particular
concern of Helen's and of mine, is around protection for
whistle blowers as well. People need to have confidence that
if they come forward to give information about corruption, for example,
(07:16):
that they are that they are protected in doing that,
and we do not currently have strong protections for whistle blowers,
so that's also important.
Speaker 1 (07:25):
Part we take them to court, don't we That's what
we do with whistle blowers. At the moment, it's I'm
not sure how you can change that.
Speaker 2 (07:32):
Well, I think you need to have protections because otherwise
people don't don't come forward, and then if they're not
coming forward, then the Commission is not able to do
to do its job.
Speaker 1 (07:43):
Do you think people generally there's a horrible question to ask,
but do people generally think that politicians are corrupt? What
do you reckon?
Speaker 2 (07:52):
I don't know that people think that they're corrupt, and
you know, all the evidence shows that corruption and genuine
corruption is at low levels in Australia. But I think
that there's a whole sort of spectrum of behavior that
people consider, you know, to be lacking in integrity all
(08:13):
the way through to corruption. And I think it's fair
to say that people you know don't rate politicians as
the most trusted profession going around. And I think that's
both disappointing but also it's it's very important to change
it because we need communities to have trust and confidence
(08:35):
in elected officials and public officials because we often have
to give them really important information. I think the pandemic
has demonstrated that that. You know, if people don't have
trust and confidence in their elected officials, you know that
they're not they're not going to have confidence in the
information that's been provided as well. So it's all very
(08:58):
very important.
Speaker 1 (08:59):
I think a case of the moment because some of
what they're saying doesn't really make sense. But anyway, it's
the politics is becoming too apparent rather than the health
I think, And I.
Speaker 2 (09:11):
Think people want to have trust and confidence, you know,
in the people that they represent, and certainly as an
elected representative, I want people to have trust and confidence
in me so that we can help, you know. That's
the bottom line.
Speaker 1 (09:29):
Yeah, that's it. Well, we've had lots of people that have, yeah,
added to that list of people that can't be trusted.
I suppose over the years, people that have been found guilty,
the EDIO beads and all those. I guess that just
reinforces it. The workplace bill, that's another one that labor
are hoping to get through. They've got a lot of
stuff to get through in a pretty short length of time.
How do you reckon that's going?
Speaker 2 (09:51):
Look, I think they've still got a bit of work
to do in the Senate and certainly I know Senator
Lamby and Senator Heill have some concerns, as does Senator Pocop,
and you know that that will be debated, I imagine
in the Senate in these next next few weeks. I
think that you know, the government and I spoke when
(10:14):
I spoke on it in the House. You know, whilst
I think everybody supports the aims of the bill to
create more secure work and increase pay for people, nobody
would would argue with that. I think it is important
to make sure that you take your time and get
the balance right with some of those things and try
(10:34):
to avoid any unintended consequences as well.
Speaker 1 (10:39):
What do you see as an unintended consequence? What risks
are here?
Speaker 2 (10:44):
Look, I think that there are risks in relation to
additional pressures on particularly small business, and that seems to
be one of the particular sticking points that people have
consistently raised in opposition to the bill. At a time
when obviously the economy is quite challenged. It's a difficult
(11:05):
space for workers but also for businesses as well. And
you know, I wouldn't want to see in a situation
where as I said in my speech, you know, if
you achieve higher wages, but you don't have a job
that can probably conserves out.
Speaker 1 (11:22):
Is it the definition of what a small business is
as according to the bill? Is that the problem? Because
I think at the moment it's twenty five staff and
I think David Pocock is arguing that they should be higher.
What do you reckon they?
Speaker 2 (11:35):
I think that's right, and I think it's an additional
burden on businesses that you know, don't have often a
capacity to cope with more a greater regulatory burden for example.
So yeah, I think the size of small business and
that was an issue that was consistently raised in the
(11:56):
debate in the Lower House as well as well as
things like the multiplayer bargaining, and they seem to be
some of the more contentious points that I think, certainly
send a Pocock and others are now turning their mind
to with.
Speaker 1 (12:10):
Only I think it's forteen percent of people in Australia
in a union. Would it really becomes as you guys
are saying, not you guys but the Liberal Party, you know,
like a mass striking event. I mean, it's not likely
to get to that, is it.
Speaker 2 (12:27):
Look, I would hope not I would hope not I would.
I don't think about it. It would be necessarily, you know,
in anyone's best interest to see more sort of strike
action and things like that. You know, unions play an
important role, and I'm not going to go out bashing unions.
(12:48):
You know, I see the good work that that unions
do do for works in our community. And as I
was sat in my own speech, you know, I've worked
in casual and to work all of my all of
my working life, mostly in hospitality, and no, I do
understand that challenge both as a worker and also you
(13:11):
know the challenges that small business owners face as well.
You know, it's not an fix, and it's important to
get on and do that work, but you know it
needs to be done diligently and in good faith.
Speaker 1 (13:23):
In my opinion, I keep seeing graphs everywhere and it
sort of shows the amount of money that companies are
making versus the amount of money that people are taking home.
And I wonder whether these graphs are skewed somehow because
of well, the gas would be one that would would
come to mind straight away. But there's a lot of
really big companies making a lot of money. Are they
(13:44):
skewing this sort of thing. Do you think small businesses
are in a position to pay more? I suppose that's
the question.
Speaker 2 (13:50):
Yes, I mean, I think there's such a lot of
variability amongst businesses, the size of the businesses, the sectors
they operate in, you know, so it's not a it's
not a homogeneous landscape, and so of course that makes
it difficult to make policies to fit everyone, you know,
because they're not all all the same. But of course,
(14:12):
businesses at the moment, like everybody else, like all all
of the population, are having increased costs as well, you know, uh,
and supply issues, and we're still sort of feeling the
effects of the pandemic as much as anything else. So
it's a it's a difficult time. And I think to add,
(14:34):
you know, additional layers of regulation on top of some
of those quite small businesses might be the straw that
bakes the camel's back, and that that's the type of
thing that I think we just need to be mindful
of as we go through. It's not to say that
you shouldn't do shouldn't do things. You just have to,
you know, make sure that you're listening and adjusting as
(14:57):
you go. If if something comes up, you haven'tained just.
Speaker 1 (15:01):
Trying and foresee all of things. Something else that I
looked at just a while ago, and it's a bit
of a worry. It's in the news in regards to
COP twenty seven in Egypt, which is just finished up,
and they've got a Climate Change Performance Index which apparently
ranks countries as far as their climate change. We're ranked
(15:23):
fifty five out of a list of sixty three, and
which is pretty bad, mainly because of our obsession with
developing new colon gas projects. What's your opinion on that?
I mean, we're doing this forty three percent that the
government keep talking about is probably at the low end
of what's necessary. But we have this obsession with colon gas.
(15:46):
How can we stop that? How can we get around that?
Speaker 2 (15:49):
Well, I suppose my opinion would be it's not going
to get any easier to deal with it. The longer
you take to deal with it. You know, the problems
aren't going to persist, and it'll probably get harder to
deal with if you don't make steps forward to address that,
to transition, to take the action that you need to make.
(16:12):
So yes, I mean, we all accept that we have
had and to continue to have, you know, a reliance
on coal and gas were export colon gas and other resources,
and and all of that is well and good, but
you need to start to take those steps to to
(16:34):
do what you can to address this global climate challenge
that we all that we all face, and Australia has
to play its path in that along with the rest
of the world. And we can't continue to just kind
of kick the can down the road because the climates
emergency will get worse and the problem of transition will
(16:56):
not get any easier the longer you delay.
Speaker 1 (17:00):
We keep hearing this, I quote ten years of inaction,
surrounded by people who were involved in that ten years
of inaction. Is it hard to say that out loud?
Speaker 2 (17:13):
Yeah? Look, I mean, as I said, you know, I
never shy away from a difficult conversation, and I have
been quite open and on the record previously as saying,
you know, I think that we need to do more.
I think we should have already have done more. But
we shouldn't wait now to begin. We shouldn't be you know,
we shouldn't be looking backwards either, you know, I think
(17:35):
that's not necessarily helpful, true or otherwise, you know, it's
just not helpful. What we need to do is start
now and take the action that's required to urgently address
this issue.
Speaker 1 (17:49):
Have you got any ideas as far as what we
can do from right now?
Speaker 2 (17:53):
Well, I think we can. What we need to do
is start by you know, and we've talked about before,
put the climate wars aside, stopped talking about the ideology
of it. I think we need to accept and have
broad acceptance of the problem. And if there's debate to
be had, then, you know, maybe it's on how we
get there, but not on where we're going. And I
(18:14):
think we're still arguing about where we should be going.
And I think it's time to put that aside and
be able to come to the discussion in a pragmatic,
solutions driven way, you know, across the political device, if
your life, because you know that caravan has moved on
and the world just cannot wait for our action.
Speaker 1 (18:38):
You sounding like a Greenie. I was going to say,
you're in the wrong party. I don't know how I
keep saying that, brigid Actia. You're in the wrong party.
I'm not sure where you fit in there. You don't
fit into any of them, do you, well.
Speaker 2 (18:48):
It's interesting, you know that I sort of have also
previously said, you know, the care for the environment is
actually in the Liberal Party's statement of beliefs. You know
that we care for the environment for future generations. So
I think it holds absolutely to those values. And that's
(19:08):
not necessarily inconsistent with business and industry. And I think
that it's amits to suggest that that it is. And
in fact, business and industry are doing more than government
when it comes to looking at how they can can transition,
including here in Tasmania. You know, people like Belvale Aluminium
(19:31):
for example. You know, they are miles ahead in terms
of looking at their you know, their carbon reduction plans
and things like that. So it's not inconsistent. And I
think that's what I mean about the climate laws and
the ideology. You know, it's not it's not an either
(19:53):
or proposition. You know, it is possible to support jobs,
to support business and industry, and to look after the
environment and decarbonize at the same time.
Speaker 1 (20:04):
We can have it all with power prices going up,
inflation about to hit. How do you reckon? Christmas is
going to look for the average person in Bass. Hopefully,
hopefully Fiona will have a stove. But for the rest
of us, how do you reckon that's going to look?
Speaker 2 (20:20):
Yeah, look, I think it's already a difficult time for
many people right across the country, and here in Northern
Tasmania no different, you know. And I'm sort of talking
to people every day and hearing stories about how they
are already sort of having disability coping. We really still
(20:41):
have this very urgent housing issue and terrible stories of
people living in really terrible conditions, and more needs to
be done to address that issue as well as those
broader cost of living issues.
Speaker 1 (21:01):
And you know, should the federal government be doing more
the state government? Every time they talk about the lack
of housing and people living in cars and people living
in the park and stuff. Whenever they start talking, it
always starts with in months or years. It's never instant.
We need something fairly instant. Is the federal government do
you think able to deliver something quicker than what the
(21:23):
state keeps suggesting.
Speaker 2 (21:26):
I think it's part of the challenge is that it
is very difficult to obviously, you know, build houses, more houses,
increase supply, you know, at the snap of your fingers.
That obviously does take time. But I think that's cold
comfort to somebody who's currently sleeping with their family and a.
Speaker 1 (21:44):
Can New South Wales government, New South Wales government I
saw on TV had a stack of pods they called them.
They were just basically transportable houses. I suppose why are
we not looking at something like that?
Speaker 2 (21:58):
Yeah, look, I think it's a good question. And you know,
I think there needs to be a view to short
and medium and longer term solutions. And I think government
has certainly turned its mind to the longer term solutions
and maybe some of the medium term solutions. But I
think that there does need to be some greater work
(22:19):
done on some of those short term solutions. And it's
not just as simple as putting somebody in a you know,
in a pod or whatever. People have got, you know,
different family circumstances, and I think importantly you still need
to make sure that people are afforded you know, human
(22:39):
bignessy and and other supports that they need as.
Speaker 1 (22:44):
Well to I know, I know if people are living
in the park and living in caves, that's that's probably
that's not human dignity at all. That's just horrible, No,
it's not.
Speaker 2 (22:55):
But I think you know, the solution is not necessarily,
you know, just to put them somewhere to set and forget,
if you know what I mean. Like I think that
there needs to be we need to find a short
term accommodation options for people, but we also, in my view,
need to provide additional sort of resourcing for those other supports,
(23:19):
social supports and other things that people need because they're
often vulnerable not just due to lack of housing, but
also a whole range of other things former di stability,
domestic violence. It needs to be more of that support
as well.
Speaker 1 (23:38):
Each person's got a story. But I'm hearing more and
more people that are actually working living in their cars,
and you know what I mean, They're not the traditional
people that you would think of when you think of
a homeless person. They're people who are going to school,
they're going to work, but there's nowhere to live, so
they're in their cars. It's a worry. Chris andy Pass
I took to him a while ago on here from
(24:00):
Ussie Homelands, and he was saying that probably by about
Christmas is when we're going to see the first wave
of people falter on their mortgages because the interest rates
have gone up, and he reckons. Just before Christmas or
around Christmas is about when it's going to kick in
and people are going to actually have to just get
out of their houses. So this problem in the next
month or so may actually get worse.
Speaker 2 (24:22):
Yes, I think it's been something of a bit of
a perfect storm in terms of availability of housing, intrast
rates going up, other cost of living pressures, and a
whole range of sort of things impacting. I would say
to people, anybody that's listening that he's got any concerns
about that, for example, you know, don't leave it to
(24:43):
reach out for help as well, you know, reach out
to your financial institutions, reach out to your utility companies,
all of those sorts of things. Like the sooner that
you can get ahead of it, you know people are
there to help st just don't leave it too late,
I think would be my advice to people.
Speaker 1 (25:04):
There's a lot of people. Right at the end, just
before I let you go, I've just had a message
put through here from Richard's in the other room doing stuff.
He's saying that apparently counsels in New South Wales are
looking at three D printed houses. Have you ever heard
of those?
Speaker 2 (25:19):
I have heard of this, Yes, and some of the
tiny house options as well, you know, so they are
not necessarily a long term solution for people. But I
do think that we need to be more creative and
more innovative in finding, you know, and implementing short term solutions,
(25:42):
emergency solutions for people while we're building new housing stock
and those sorts of things, which is all great, but
people who are living in their tents now can't wait, can't.
Speaker 1 (25:52):
Wait for the long term solutions. Absolutely. Yeah, So Richard
just said that apparently there's a bunch of them or
a couple of them in Dubbo at the moment. They
must be pretty new. So I don't know how you
three D printer house. I can't picture it, but obviously
it can be done. How interesting, Bridget Archer. I'll let
you get back to whatever it was you're doing. What
are you going to be doing this morning? You're going
to be just looking back at the ocean at the
(26:15):
beach there or what are you going to be doing?
Speaker 2 (26:16):
Well, that would be very nice, and I have enjoyed
looking at that view while I've been.
Speaker 1 (26:22):
Talking, sitting there looking at bridge for a beach.
Speaker 2 (26:24):
Yes i am, but I'm headed off to to brank
home first and then back to Scott's. I've got a
few meetings, but I will be doing a mobile office
from about twelve thirty outside the Cottage Bakery at Scott Stars.
So anyone up there wants to come and say hello,
Ha's got an issue like with their stoves? You owly
(26:48):
come down and see me. I'll be happy to have
a chat.
Speaker 1 (26:50):
Come and have a winge to bridget Archer. Excellent stuff, yeah,
she said, signed, Come winge, winge complain here bridget Winging
welcome lcally you come with your gripes. Bridget Archer, Federal
Member for Best. Thanks for your time this morning. It's
been terrific, no worries talking. Listen live at Tasmania Talks
dot com dot au
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.