Hume & McAllister, Sky News
4 August 2023
TOM CONNELL: Welcome back to Hume and McAllister, the only panel where they get to start the program completely ignoring me, its Shadow Finance Minister Jane Hume, and Assistant Climate Change and Energy Minister Jenny McAllister in their blue and red. And coincidentally, I've managed purple. So I know it looks planned. I promise you it's not James, any welcome. You get to tell first of all, thanks, Jenny, what's on your mind?
JENNY MCALLISTER: Well, this week, we saw former coalition ministers try and literally rewrite history. And it was much of what we had come to expect, unfortunately, from the former coalition government, Robo debt sought, illegal and immoral. Debt collection notices issued against some of the most vulnerable people in our community. And what did we say this week? No contrition, no responsibility, no acceptance. Despite all the findings of the Royal Commission, or the evidence put before the Commission, we just saw former coalition ministers trying to point the finger at anyone but themselves.
TOM CONNELL: Jane.
JANE HUME: I'm just noticing that there's no 30 second clock that's good. I could be going for about an hour and a half here. Look, prior to the election, Anthony Albanese and the now Labor government promised cheaper mortgages, cheaper electricity, and cheaper childcare. Now yesterday, the ABS came out with cost of living data that has shown that this cost of living has skyrocketed 9.6% In the last 12 months now that even dwarfs the 6% inflation. So not only have we not got cheaper electricity, not got cheaper childcare and not got cheaper mortgages, but we've also got more expensive groceries, more expensive insurance. And of course, rents are up too. And the decisions of this government are making and making the situation worse, the government is concentrating on anything other than what's important to all Australians. And that's getting the cost of living under control.
TOM CONNELL: All right, so let's kick off on what just happened in Parliament. Not in your house, but I'm sure you're aware of a pretty fiery debate on the voice. We've had the the macro data and treaties coming into focus this week. Is this an issue because your party's against the treaty process happening?
JANE HUME: Well, I think we should take a step back here, Tom, the concern here is that the commitment that was made by the Prime Minister, when he came to government was that he would implement the other restatement of heart in full. And part of the only part of that is the voice. And yet there seems to be inconsistencies and indeed, occasionally silence as we saw in the Senate question time today, when the up when the government won't even say the word treaty. So let's be clear about what the government actually is intending to legislate when we were in government. And we were moving towards constitutional recognition. And we were trying to do so-
TOM CONNELL: You were moving towards a Voice too but legislating one.
JANE HUME: in a consensus building way and that's why when we were in government, we established a committee that had co chairs, not a chair and a deputy chair as you would normally do and government co chairs between Julian Leeser and Pat Dodson. All of that consensus building that bipartisan position that we really wanted to get to okay was set aside at the election. The government has politicised-
TOM CONNELL: But are you for or against a treaty process?
JANE HUME: This is the thing that government has politicised the process of indigenous recognition in the Constitution, and instead decided to go in a completely different direction to the opposition. And I think that that's a real shame, because essentially, it's putting political and electoral priorities ahead of what could have genuinely been a way to progress, indigenous issues around disadvantage-
TOM CONNELL: Closing the gap and so on, I'm just trying to deduce from this week, are you sort of sizing up to the against the treaty process
JANE HUME: Well treaty hasn't even been looked at here. I mean, it hasn't been part of the consensus building process.
TOM CONNELL: You phrase it like it's an issue like, 'this is what they're gonna do next'. Isn't that the problem?
JANE HUME: I mean, this is the thing if the government says, if the Prime Minister says we adopt the Uluru Statement, which is not something we have ever done.
TOM CONNELL: Let me get to team red because I'm not managing my time very well here, Jenny, on this treaty, that this is the next step according to Labor. You've said voice first and then treaty, how would that sort of play out. Will you consult the Australian people, particularly if big amounts of money will be paid out? Is the party thinking about how to do this?
JENNY MCALLISTER: Well, a couple of things here. Our priority right now is the Voice. And we've been very upfront about that from the beginning. We've also been consistent in this regard with the Uluru Statement, which calls first for Voice and then for a Makarrata Commission that could consider agreement making and truth telling. There is no mystery here. We are starting with the Voice because that is the commitment that we made and the voice really is quite a simple proposition. It's about constitutional recognition, listening so that we get practical results. Jane pointed to the bipartisanship that once lay around those questions, it is not too late for that to be restored. We cannot go on as we've had been, we cannot go. If you are arguing for in the no case, you're arguing for the same poor levels and disparities in terms of life expectancy, you're arguing to leave things as they are, in terms of low birth rates.
JANE HUME: That's not true.
JENNY MCALLISTER: You're arguing for the same poor outcomes in terms of education for Aboriginal Torres Strait Islander people. We can't go on, as we have been. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have asked us for this. It's an act of recognition, an opportunity to listen and an opportunity to do better and that's why it's our focus.
JANE HUME: But this is what you said, you said, it's clear, but it's not clear. The Voice isn't clear, let alone treaty, let alone Makarrata Commission, let alone truth telling. Nobody understands exactly what these things mean, and you haven't explained it to them. So how can they possibly vote for something that they don't understand what the implications are? It's fine, saying it's a modest and reasonable proposal. But if you don't understand that, how can you vote for it? Because once it's there, you can't change it? Wouldn't it have been better to have moved on the bipartisan path of building a model implementing that, and then deciding whether it should be embedded into the Constitution?
JENNY MCALLISTER: I guess, Jane, it's not too late for the Coalition to come on board.
JANE HUME: It's not too late for you to pull the referendum and move in the direction of building a model for a Voice to Parliament, without embedding it in the Constitution.
JENNY MCALLISTER: We can't afford to wait any longer, Jane, this is a process that started a very long time ago. It is a request that emerged from an extended period of consultation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. It's a process that once enjoyed coalition support. And the sad thing I think, is that your party has walked away from from reasons that you haven't articulated clearly.
TOM CONNELL: Would you have, sorry to jump in, would you have an assurance, I mean if people are watching this week saying 'treaty next. okay, that worries me'. Would that, if there any major changes around a treaty or major decisions, would there be a consultation process with voters? How would that sort of work?
JENNY MCALLISTER: Well, agreement making is occurring at the moment, all around the country, it's occurring in Queensland with bipartisan support, it's occurring in Victoria where Jane's with bipartisan support, it's being led in Tasmania by a Liberal government. This process of discussion and forming voluntary agreements about sometimes broad matters, sometimes narrow ones is one that is already appearing. But it's not our focus at the moment, our focus is on establishing constitutional recognition through voice to make a practical difference.
TOM CONNELL: Okay, need to move on to housing briefly. You're still, your parties still opposed to the housing fund. Is there anything in its stead, you're actually putting forward here? I know you say you got concerned it doesn't address the full number. It's off the books and so on. But are you just saying no more spending, no additional spending on social affordable housing?
JANE HUME: No, we always knew that there was going to be a housing policy. Indeed, both parties took a housing policy to the election. And we will certainly go to the next election with a comprehensive housing policy ourselves. What we are saying, though, is that this particular policy is not a good one, it is a I use the word yes, it's a dog of a policy, I mean, the fact that it would borrow $10 billion, but which you then have to make interest repayments of about $400 billion a year, plus pay a management fee to the to the Future Fund or tune of around 1%. So, let's say $100 billion, so that's half a billion dollars, that has to be repaid every year on that 10 billion that's been invested with the with the Future Fund, the Future Fund then has to make a return and only that return minus I assume the interest repayments and management fee will be invested-
TOM CONNELL: Well, there is meant to be a floor on it if those changes get up, but-
JANE HUME: That potentially means that no housing could be made. Wouldn't it have been better to come up with better policies that would actually deliver social housing. Are you saying just be upfront? Spend real money, take it out of the budget and spend that on social housing. No, I'm not proposing an alternative policy to this one because I don't think that this is where we would have begun. You know, we would not have come up with this policy.
TOM CONNELL: As a principle though, are you saying borrowing money to do this isn't the right thing, find the money somewhere.
JANE HUME: Actually, I think the better solution to the housing crisis that Australia is facing right now is using this moment in history where you have a Federal Labor Government and state Labor governments right around the country banging their heads together the premise of saying open up supply. I was down in Moorabool Shire, just down in Ballan, you know what Ballan is Tom, Just a couple of weeks ago, and they were telling me that there's 18,000 houses ready to go ready to go that just need to be ticked off by the Victorian State Government. Now, why isn't Anthony Albanese talking to Dan Andrews and say why are you not ticking off these houses? They're ready to go.
JENNY MCALLISTER: It's not an either or is it Jane, our government has taken the question of housing supply to National Cabinet. There is an agreement between the states and the territories to work together to increase housing supply in the private market. And that is important. It's something that could have been done a long time ago and wasn't done under the government that you were part or Jane. But we do need to increase the supply of social housing. And what the community housing sector tells us about the Housing Australia Future Fund and the reason that they're so desperate for it to pass is because the structure that's been put in place, we'll see a predictable regular supply or funding that can be made available to the community housing sector. They are also saying, Jane, that they have houses that are ready to go designed with the approvals and all they are waiting for is the funding and if you support more social housing-
JANE HUME: But you gave them an extra $2 billion. Pulled in out of the back of the couch, it wasn't even in the Budget.
JENNY MCALLISTER: If you support social housing, it is the opportunity now for the coalition and for the Greens to pass this bill because it is desperately needed.
TOM CONNELL: Does that mean this floor, because Labor proposed the floor when it was negotiating with the Greens, so the minimum spend is that in the Bill regardless there because my understanding is the minimum spend wasn't necessarily there as part of Labor's original plan. Is that now locked and loaded as part of your plan that minimum $500 million spend a year?
JENNY MCALLISTER: We are proposing that, and it arises through consultations across the Parliament. I mean, we have been interested to hear the views over others around the Parliament. But the time is now to pass it every day that we delay has a real cost for the people that depend on it. There are too many people who are homeless right now. Too many women and children escaping violence, too many people who made the infrastructure and it is time to move.
JANE HUME: Do you think the double dissolution threat was taken seriously, really?
JENNY MCALLISTER: I think that the Parliament needs to take the bill seriously and the problem that the bill seeks to address.
JANE HUME: But it's not an early election happening, is it? Just tell me, as someone who's going to cover this thing, I'm not going to have to duck out there in November, am I?
JENNY MCALLISTER: Tom, the election won't be this year.
TOM CONNELL: There we go.
JENNY MCALLISTER: The call on when an election's on is for the Prime Minister.
TOM CONNELL: Jenny, Jane, great to see you here in the studio. We'll see you next week.