Transcript: Craig Emerson, Interview, ABC
Craig Emerson
posted Wednesday, 11 August 2010
E & O E – PROOF ONLY
Subjects: National Broadband Network; Internet filter; LNP candidate for Dawson.
KING: Dr Craig Emerson from Labor, good morning.
EMERSON: Good morning Madonna.
KING: Senator George Brandis from the Coalition, good morning to you.
BRANDIS: Good morning Madonna.
KING: Both senior people in your respective parties. Part of the leadership. And where you go with this? Do you think national broadband interests a specific group of voters who will make their decision on who to elect or who to vote for on national broadband, or do you think it's of wider interest than that? I'm quite surprised at the level of interest this morning. George Brandis?
BRANDIS: I think it's a mix. I think, as I was saying to you off air just before, that there is a group of people in the community who are fascinated by technology and are very, very enthusiastic about it and I think are deeply interested and very excited about the issue.
KING: And have you lost their vote?
BRANDIS: No because from - hardly. We'll come to the detail of the respective schemes and their merits in a moment, but let me answer your first question. I think more generally people who don't have an enthusiasts' involvement with technology nevertheless understand that it is important. They use email themselves in their daily lives. But I suspect most people are not terribly well informed about the technical dimensions of this.
KING: Are you?
BRANDIS: Not especially.
KING: Should your leader have been more informed last night in that interview on The 7:30 Report?
BRANDIS: Look I didn't see the interview as a matter of fact, but I am told by those - by people who I've spoken to who did that he went very well.
KING: Craig Emerson?
EMERSON: There's broad interest in this issue. It's obviously an issue in regional Australia, regional Queensland in particular, but very much in the outer suburban areas of our cities including here in Brisbane. Many of your listeners will tell you of broadband black spots if you like, where they just can't get access to it at all.
KING: Yeah we've gone through this in detail before 9 o'clock, but to me it comes down to a couple of things: it's a lot of money to spend isn't it, $40 billion?
EMERSON: It's a good investment in the nation's future...
KING: But it's also a lot of money.
EMERSON: Yes. So was building the Sydney Harbour Bridge.
KING: So was the Building the Education Revolution - $16 billion, and there were problems with that. The pink batts - and there were problems with that ...
EMERSON: Yeah. And so was the Snowy Mountains Scheme. So what are we saying, we shouldn't have done those?
KING: No but my ...
EMERSON: We shouldn't have built the Sydney Harbour Bridge? Shouldn't have built the Snowy Mountains Scheme because they were too expensive? The nation can't afford them?
KING: Do you think this is as big as those things?
EMERSON: Well, it's a modern day equivalent of the Snowy Mountains Scheme, there's no doubt about that.
KING: Now, I think some people are saying $40 billion - will we trust the Gillard Government to do this? Given what we've seen with the schools program? Given what we've seen with the pink batts?
On the other hand you're not off the hook Senator George Brandis. People are saying, ‘well, don't we need to be internationally competitive?’ The Coalition’s won't do that in the same way Labor's will.
BRANDIS: Well, look … are you asking me or Craig?
KING: No, still with Craig.
EMERSON: Oh, okay. Well let's just very quickly talk about the schools program: 2.7 per cent of schools were the subject of complaint, 97.3 per cent were not. Now that's a...
KING: There was money wasted.
EMERSON: ... there is a pretty good - that is a pretty good investment in saving jobs during a global economic recession. But now let's move back, we need the latest technology. We should not be, and do not need to be a technological backwater in Australia ...
KING: [Interrupts] But are we a technological backwater?
EMERSON: We will be - already - ask your listeners. I'm sure they're ringing in saying they can't get broadband at all, or the speeds are very, very low and poor. But we've got countries ...
KING: But 100 megabits a second? Do we ...
EMERSON: ... we've got countries like Japan and South Korea with whom we must compete ...
KING: And what are they on?
EMERSON: Well they're on the latest and they're always investing in more ...
KING: What is the latest?
EMERSON: Well they're on fibre. They are on fibre optic cable ...
KING: [Interrupts] But how many megabits per second do you get in Korea or in Japan? How ...
EMERSON: Well it would be at least 100 megabits per second because that's what fibre offers.
KING: Look I'm going to put my hand up to Anne to see if we can find out. On the SMS people are saying the world average download is 7.73 per second, megabits per second. South Korea is the best with 32, Japan's 17, Brisbane six. Now that's from Peter on the SMS. Are you saying he's wrong?
EMERSON: No I'm saying that fibre optic cable offers 100 megabits per second and that's what we're investing in ...
KING: [Interrupts] But you just said the other ...
EMERSON: I didn't say that it was across every part of Japan or Korea. I'm saying that fibre optic cable, which is deployed in these countries, involves 100 megabit per second speeds.
KING: And you're saying we can't get that anywhere in Australia unless we go down the $40 billion track?
EMERSON: You can't get fibre optic cable around Australia unless we make a national investment. And what the Coalition is saying is that people don't deserve that.
KING: Are they saying … are you saying people don't deserve it? Or people don't want it? George Brandis, what are you saying?
BRANDIS: We're not saying that people don't deserve it - of course not.
KING: Are you saying that people don't want it?
BRANDIS: What we're saying is that what Australia should have is the best possible system, consistent with it being economically affordable. Now if I may respond to some of the things Craig said. Be very scared, be very, very scared, when you hear a Labor politician wanting to spend $43 billion of public money on the basis that it's bold and visionary. You know you don't … this is the problem with this government … they commit billions upon billions upon tens of billions of dollars of taxpayers' money on the basis of rhetoric and good intentions, rather than on the basis of carefully working out whether it's value for money. Now you just heard a Minister, an economic Minister in the Government, say South Korea is more than 100 megabits per second. He didn't have the faintest idea what he was saying...
EMERSON: I did not say that.
BRANDIS: You did. He didn't have the faintest idea...
EMERSON: I said fibre optic cable is 100 megabits per second.
BRANDIS: ... he didn't have the faintest idea what he was talking about and you have to correct him and say as a matter of fact in South Korea it's 32 megabits a second .
KING: Well no don't misquote me, I'm not correcting, I'm saying Peter on an SMS has said this. I've looked at Anne and we're going to try and find out what it is in Japan.
BRANDIS: Okay, well let's see if Peter's right or Craig's right. Now let me make these points as well - our concern about this is on several levels - first of all it's an enormous amount of money. $43...
EMERSON: [Interrupts] You've said that 17 times. Yeah, I've got that.
BRANDIS: ... $43 billion. Secondly, we have no reason to believe that it in fact it will be only $43 billion. One of your listeners, Steve from Carindale ...
KING: Yeah well, Steve's made that point.
BRANDIS: ... said before that it would be at least twice that. So you're talking about nearly $100 billion if he's right. Thirdly, this was done without a business plan. Now that is shocking that the commitment of at least $43 billion of public money on a major enterprise and without a business – without ...
EMERSON: I wonder if I might get a word in here some time during this discussion?
BRANDIS: ... without a business plan. Nextly, the Labor Party commissioned an implementation study which they refused to release - they refused to release - so we don't know whether we are getting value for money or not. All we have is Labor politicians ...
EMERSON: Settle down George.
BRANDIS: ... saying ‘this is bold and visionary, I'll have $86 billion of your money please.’
KING: All right, you have had your say. Have your cup of tea and enjoy it ...
EMERSON: And settle down. Where's the $86 billion come from George? You just doubled it because a listener doubled it.
KING: But Craig Emerson, there is a concern about the money spent and whether you can deliver it? And indeed whether we need 100 megabits per second? Very briefly, why do we need it to be that fast?
EMERSON: Because we need to be world competitive in the 21st Century ...
BRANDIS: You don't even know what the world competitive speeds are.
KING: George Brandis, you've had your say.
EMERSON: Butt out. You have not stopped talking and I haven't had a chance to talk.
BRANDIS: Craig, please keep your temper. I know that …
EMERSON: You have interrupted every time.
BRANDIS: I know the election is only 10 days away, but please keep your temper.
KING: Craig?
EMERSON: The Coalition's plan is this: that in the inner city areas if there's cable you could get, in the CBDs, 100 megabits per second. In the suburban areas you will get copper and it could give you 20. And in outer urban areas it'll be wireless and you may get 12. Now, we're saying 100 megabits per second across 93 per cent of Australia with the other seven per cent covered by wireless and satellite. Now, that is an important investment in the nation's future. And to have this old 20th Century technology being rolled out by a Coalition that had … is the 19th Coalition plan for broadband, the 19th, because they've never been able to deliver one of them.
KING: But you're not addressing the question of, can you deliver this?
EMERSON: Well, of course we can deliver it. We've entered into an arrangement with Telstra and that has been announced very recently. Telstra has actually got a bit of experience in all of this, Madonna. And the Australian people deserve it in the 21st Century. We're not going to utilise a 20th Century solution to a 21st Century challenge. We're just not going to do that.
KING: Your comments are prompting a whole other debate on Twitter, but one of the comments is this: why aren't we talking to also … very interesting points on both sides of the debate, but why aren't we talking about the Internet filter and where the parties stand, because that's the second element in this debate in terms of the Internet? Craig Emerson, Labor and the Internet filter, what's the argument for it?
EMERSON: The argument is to do what we can to prevent the downloading of offensive material such as child pornography.
KING: Who decides what's offensive and what's not?
EMERSON: Well that - I don't know the answer to that. That's the truth of it. There will be a system independent of Government. And I'll tell you this: I will defend every day a capacity to prevent the downloading of child pornography. We will work …
KING: [Interrupts] But it's an easy thing to say, isn't it? It's an easy thing to say, no one wants child pornography, but will this filter it out?
EMERSON: No, I think that people are saying that there should be freedom to download what you want. I'm not saying everyone's saying that, but some people are saying there should be no filter whatsoever.
KING: So are you saying … let me get you right here … are you saying that some people opposed to the Internet filter are saying it's their right to download …
EMERSON: [Interrupts] No, I didn't say that. I'm not saying that at all.
KING: What are you saying?
EMERSON: I'm saying that some people are saying there should be no filter. Simple as that, there should be no filter.
KING: What is their motivation for wanting no filter, are you saying?
EMERSON: Well, I don't know. They might have 20,000 different motivations. I am simply saying that some people believe there should be no filter. What we believe is that there should be a filter but we need to get it right. And so obviously we're not interested in censorship or anything like that or …
KING: [Interrupts] But doesn't so much depend on …
BRANDIS: That’s exactly what you are …
EMERSON: Well, George, what are you defending?
KING: No, I'm asking the questions, Craig Emerson. Doesn't so much depend on who makes the decision on what is allowed and what isn't? But you don't know ...
EMERSON: Well, it'll be at arm's length from Government. That's the important point. I don't know the names of the people, Madonna. I'm sorry about that. They haven't been appointed because this hasn't been settled. I don't know the names of the people.
KING: Do you guarantee then that child pornography would not be accessible once the filter was operative?
EMERSON: I won't give that guarantee because I won't say that the Internet filtering technology will definitely, in all possible circumstances, prevent any unauthorised download. I won't say that.
KING: And one more question before I go to George Brandis. Is that Labor's main rationale for the filter: to prevent child porn?
EMERSON: Well, it's to prevent material being viewed by young people who - very young people, I'm not talking about 18 year olds and above - but by very young people who otherwise shouldn't be seeing that sort of material.
KING: But are there some things that I should be able to look at that my children shouldn't be able to look at, and they'll be caught up in the Internet filter?
EMERSON: Well, I don't know how it'll work in practice. That's the truth because it is still being developed. But I believe in the policy of an Internet filter. I think you'll find that Tony Abbott does too.
KING: George Brandis, isn't it good that Labor is looking at something that will prevent the downloading of child pornography in Australia?
BRANDIS: Except that's not what they're doing. It's what they say they're doing, just like they're always saying they're doing something. They're like the person who is always ‘gunna do something’ but then that's not what they're doing. There are four things wrong with the Labor Party's approach to this. First of all, there is no guarantee - and when you ask Craig to give one he prudently declined to - there's no guarantee that this Internet filter will stop the download of child pornography and other noxious material. Secondly, and Craig didn't mention this, but there is plenty of expert evidence to suggest the sort of filters that the Labor Party are talking about will, in fact, extend way beyond - I mean, people talk about child pornography but it's not just about that.
KING: Extend to what?
BRANDIS: Extend to material that in no view should be censored because the filter is a blunt instrument.
KING: Like what?
BRANDIS: It's a blunt instrument. So, for example, material that makes completely anodyne references to children. No element of child pornography whatsoever - none whatsoever - but could be caught because of the way in which the filter is configured. So there's the problem of overreach. Thirdly, we know that filters of this kind do slow down Internet speeds significantly. We've just been having a reasonably heated debate in which Craig has been holding up the desire to increase the speed of downloads. These will slow down Internet speeds. And fourthly, in relation to the thing that is on most people's minds at the centre of this debate - that is protecting children from pornography - because it's an ineffective mechanism, it has the risk of creating, among parents, a false sense of security that they don't have to actually keep an eye on this in the home.
KING: Can I just ask, is the Internet - both the speed and the National Broadband and the Internet filter - probably the biggest difference in policy to voters going into the election?
BRANDIS: No.
EMERSON: No.
KING: Oh my goodness, there's agreement. I mean, in terms articulated during the campaign, to see you both fired up and very different viewpoints, what's bigger than this?
EMERSON: The general economic management.
BRANDIS: Boats, waste, debt, those are the - the big mining tax. I mean, I know it's a bit of a mantra but one of the virtues of …
EMERSON: I think we're going to get a slogan.
BRANDIS: One of the virtues of Tony Abbott's mantra is it does define sharp, core differences between the parties, that only the Coalition will stop the boats, only the Coalition …
EMERSON: Here comes the mantra.
BRANDIS: … will stop the big mining tax, only the Coalition will stop the waste and only the Coalition will …
EMERSON: Here comes the slogans.
BRANDIS: … reduce the debt. Because on each of those four big differences between the parties, we've succeeded in the past whereas in the last three years, on every one, Labor has failed.
KING: So you say. So you say you will do this.
BRANDIS: We've done it in the past. That's what the Howard Government did. It paid down the Labor debt, it stopped the waste …
EMERSON: Yeah, here we go, the slogans again.
BRANDIS: … it stopped the boats and it …
EMERSON: Brought to you by the ABC.
BRANDIS: … didn't introduce big taxes. Those are the issues in this election, Craig. You've run away from them but those are the big issues.
KING: A right of reply coming up just after Gail Burke in the newsroom. Gail, save me.
[Unrelated item - news]
KING: Gail, thank you. Download speeds; Australia ranks 36th with seven, South Korea top with 31, USA not in the top, 15, Japan eighth with 17. Craig Emerson, I promised you a right of reply after George Brandis's, how do I describe that?
EMERSON: Diatribe.
BRANDIS: Recitation of the key issues in the election.
KING: Recitation of the key issues in the campaign.
EMERSON: Slogans.
BRANDIS: They're not slogans, those are our commitments.
EMERSON: And before we get to that, very briefly, George has now provided a very clear set of four reasons why the Coalition will not engage in Internet filtering. I think that will be very disappointing to many of your listeners. On the economy ...
KING: Well, I'll ask our listeners now.
EMERSON: Yeah, sure.
KING: SMS me, we'll do a quick phone poll on Internet filters. Yes if you want an Internet filter, no if you don't. So yes, just SMS yes to 19922612 if you support an Internet filter. No if you don't. We'll give you the results in an hour or so.
EMERSON: The reason I said no - and this was the one thing that George and I agreed on - the broadband network is very important, there's no doubt about it, but it's just part of a broader economic debate. We have kept the economy out of recession, the only developed country, advanced developed country, in the world to do so.
There's news out of the United States that they're worried about them being in trouble again. This is the last possible, sensible time that you could ever imagine to withdraw stimulus. That's what the Coalition is promising to do. They are promising to cut services and flatten the economy, smash small business and put more people out of work. That is why this election is so important.
KING: All right.
EMERSON: Because we will invest in the future, we've got a strong economy. We've built a strong economy to afford these sorts of services in broadband, health and education.
KING: All right, you've made the point and you've said your say.
BRANDIS: Can I just say, I'm very surprised to hear you say that this is the worst time to withdraw stimulus Craig, because Mr Swan, the Treasurer, when he attended the last G20 meeting actually subscribed to a declaration that the fiscal policies of the G20 nations, including Australia ...
EMERSON: Oh, George ...
BRANDIS: Have to shift from stimulation to debt reduction.
EMERSON: We're phasing down the stimulus ...
BRANDIS: You've changed your policy.
EMERSON: You know we're phasing down the stimulus, and we'll return the budget to surplus in three years.
BRANDIS: You said a moment ago that this was the worst time to phase down the stimulus. What is it Craig?
EMERSON: Because you will axe it, you will axe it. Because your policy is to axe the stimulus ...
BRANDIS: Craig, you're all over the place.
EMERSON: To axe the school building program, to axe Trades Training Centres.
KING: All right, we're moving on.
BRANDIS: Please, save me.
KING: I'm just going to ...
EMERSON: You need saving, you need saving.
KING: George that's my line, that's my line. George - I need saving from both of you! George Christensen, the Liberal National Party's candidate in the marginal seat of Dawson, has got himself into to trouble over sexist and homophobic comments he made as a university student.
BRANDIS: Yes.
KING: And I'm wondering with both of you, you've said things probably in your youth, or done things. Does a leopard change its spots or do we all have something in the university cupboard that we'd rather forget about? How harshly should we judge a politician, on either side, for something they said at university? I'll start with you, Craig Emerson.
EMERSON: Well, I think it's relevant but it's quite possible that Mr Christensen has changed his position, changed his mind. I thought Tony Abbott's re-endorsement of him, saying he's a good bloke, was a bit over the top. I think some of the comments that he made back then were offensive, are offensive today.
KING: Should he be dis-endorsed or not?
EMERSON: I'm not arguing that he should be dis-endorsed. I'm arguing that the people of Dawson should make a considered decision about the worthiness, or otherwise, of Mr Christensen for the position of Member for Dawson.
KING: George Brandis?
BRANDIS: Well, I know George Christensen. He is a good bloke. He's certainly a lot better than the dope who's been representing Dawson for the last three years, who you have dis-endorsed.
KING: Yes but ...
BRANDIS: Now, now, can I say this ...
EMERSON: We didn't dis-endorse him. Just tell the truth for once George. Just for once.
BRANDIS: You did dis-endorse him. You forced him out because he was an embarrassment to you. Now two things about what Mr Christensen has had to say. First of all, in relation to the homophobic remarks, I was contacted about an hour ago by Corey Irlam, who's the spokesman for the Coalition for Equality which is the principal gay lobby group in Australia.
KING: Yes.
BRANDIS: Who wanted me, to reassure me that his, that the gay community, have accepted George Christensen's apology, do not consider he ought to be dis-endorsed and wish to move on. Which I thought was a very gracious response. Secondly I wouldn't want to trespass too far, if I were you Craig on what people might have said when they were at university or else we might have to go into what Julia Gillard used to get up to when she was the convenor of Socialist Forum, a quasi-communist group to the left of the left wing of the Labor Party at the University of Melbourne.
EMERSON: Rubbish.
KING: Is it fair you saying that?
EMERSON: That's applying two standards.
BRANDIS: It's a fact.
EMERSON: You've just applied two standards. I said that I didn't think he should be dis-endorsed. I said people changed their minds and you say, ‘oh, well Craig, if you're going to put that, then Julia Gillard was a member of such an organisation.’
BRANDIS: She was. It's a fact.
EMERSON: You're applying one standard for the Coalition and another standard ...
BRANDIS: I notice you haven't denied it.
EMERSON: And another standard for the Liberals.
KING: But you were saying people shouldn't be judged at university and then you're turning around and judging Julia ...
BRANDIS: I'm saying be careful. I mean, you know people do, say, go over the top at university. I think young people who are politically active often tend to adopt positions much sharper than, with maturity, they are comfortable with. But if ever there was a case of somebody who had an extreme position on the authoritarian left of politics at university, it's the current Prime Minister.
KING: It was a long time ago.
EMERSON: And the reason this is not true is that this is not a communist organisation as you have stated. Yet another lie.
BRANDIS: Socialist Forum - I'll tell you what Socialist Forum was, Craig.
KING: No, I'm not interested in hearing what Socialist Forum is. We're moving on to the next topic. You raised Julia Gillard so I might end it here. Are we seeing the real Julia Gillard now? We've seen Q&A on Monday night, the 7PM Project last night. It's very different from the Julia Gillard we saw in the first week of the campaign.
EMERSON: It's the Julia Gillard that I know.
KING: So were you angry that she wasn't like that in the first couple of weeks?
EMERSON: The only difference was that she was doing a limited number of media appearances, Madonna.
KING: She was also not showing the sense of humour, for example, that she showed last night.
EMERSON: Sure. You are seeing Julia Gillard as the person that I know and her colleagues know. And the appearance on Q&A, and the 7PM Project is just a reflection of that. As well, the debate – or discussion can't be a debate because Tony Abbott has no time for a debate – but he's going to turn up for a meeting tonight.
KING: We're talking about Julia Gillard. Do you think that this has made it more difficult for the Coalition?
BRANDIS: The truth is, Madonna, nobody knows who the real Julia Gillard is because she's like one of those mythological creatures who reinvents herself every few days. I mean we've had Julia Gillard the incompetent Minister; Julia Gillard the loyal deputy; Julia Gillard the disloyal deputy; Julia Gillard the backstabber; Julia Gillard the spin doctored merchant; Julia Gillard for Q&A the other day. I mean, who knows who Julia Gillard is?
KING: Well one person we do know who is, is Mark Latham. Are you worried where he's going to pop up again?
EMERSON: Not at all.
KING: That's the only one, the only question you don't want to elaborate on.
EMERSON: I'm happy to elaborate on it. I'm not worried where Mark Latham pops up. I actually think that the Australian people are interested in the big debates about policy, about what affects ...
KING: But is he taking the attention away from her message?
EMERSON: Well that's up to media outlets to determine that. But if Mark wants to provide a rolling commentary every night, and the media wants to run it every day, I suppose that just means that the Australian people don't get the wonderfully enlightening sort of debate that George and I have just engaged in today.
KING: Yes, so are you going to shake hands, make up before you walk out the door?
BRANDIS: We've always been friends.
EMERSON: That's true.
KING: I was just waiting for your comment there. Senator George Brandis, look forward to talking to you again next week.
BRANDIS: Thank you, Madonna.
KING: Craig Emerson, look forward to talking next week.
EMERSON: Righty-o, thanks.
KING: And next week - George Brandis and Craig Emerson - you could be in the audience for if you like. They've just shaken hands. I'll tell you more details in the next couple of days but we will be out and about next Wednesday and George Brandis and Craig Emerson will be there.
Tags: broadband, Dawson, Emerson, internet, NBN