Sky News
DAVID SPEERS: Let's go now to the Trade Minister Steve Ciobo, who joins us this afternoon. And look, we were going to talk about your portfolio areas, which we will, but we need to start with this breaking news and you're the first in the Government to respond to this, Steve Ciobo. Are you surprised that one of your own now, a Liberal, for the first time, could be in trouble?
STEVEN CIOBO: Well, I think that since the High Court decision, David, there is of course, now opportunity for everyone to know precisely where they stand with respect to section 44. I mean, you just read out the President of the Senate Stephen Parry's statements, Senator Parry has made it clear that he is talking to British Authorities. They'll know, I suspect in the next 24 or 48 hours, what the situation is and we'll then be much clearer.
DAVID SPEERS: You suggest there, that the High Court decision gives people an opportunity to check, surely Steve Ciobo, the time to check was back when this whole issue exploded. Didn't everyone in the Parliament, who maybe had a father born in Britain, think it would be a good idea to check on their dual citizenship?
STEVEN CIOBO: I don't think that's what I said, what I said is that it gives clarity around the operation of section 44, but I agree-
DAVID SPEERS: Alright, but my point is surely Stephen Parry should have checked this much earlier?
STEVEN CIOBO: Well, I agree with you, I think that, certainly a lot of people have been looking at them. I mean David, I've been asked 1000 times with a surname like Ciobo, you can imagine how many times I've been asked a question by journalists about Italian Citizenship and I have got a letter from the Italian Embassy indicating I'm not, never have been an Italian citizen. So, you know I mean I expect that there's a lot of people who've gone back through, if they hadn't done so previously, and bear in mind most people would have done so previously. But if they haven't, then they've really got reason to focus.
DAVID SPEERS: Yeah, but this raises the fundamental question, we're told by the Liberal Party and the Labor Party that you have much more stringent checks, when nominating for Parliament, and so on. I mean, he's a lovely guy Stephen Parry, but this is pretty sneaky isn't it? His father is born in the UK and he hasn't checked until just now?
STEVEN CIOBO: Well, I think that this whole issue about citizenship by descent has been the curve ball that's thrown a lot of people. I mean, I think on any realistic measure David, there are a hell of a lot of people who would be surprised to learn that perhaps, because their grandparent or something like that, was a citizen of another country that that in some way means that they've apparently got citizenship of that country. I mean, I've even -
DAVID SPEERS: Sure, but people like Fiona Nash did the right thing back when this came up and said, look turns out I'm not sure. Nick Xenophon did the right thing and said look, turns out I'm not sure. They were referred to the ... Why didn't Stephen Parry put his hand up back then?
STEVEN CIOBO: Well, I think you're asking the wrong person. Perhaps you should direct that question to Senator Parry. But I know that he has released a statement this afternoon. He's made clear that he's waiting on advice back from the British High Commission. So all will be revealed in the next 24 or 48 hours I expect.
DAVID SPEERS: Now what do you say to the idea of an audit of all MPs and Senators?
STEVEN CIOBO: Well, this is the point I was going to a little earlier, David. I mean frankly, I think that's a bit of a silly idea. It's one of these things that sounds great as it rolls off the tongue because it's a nice, simple sentence. But, you know short of effectively writing to every country on the face of the planet and asking, is there someway, a chance I'm a descendant of your country, a citizen of your country. Because I've got a great-uncle's aunt, or whatever it might be, some form of lineal descent. I mean this is my point about this citizenship by descent. It starts to become a little bit silly frankly, where you apparently in some countries, have no finite point where that citizenship by descent actually finishes. So you could have someone who was citizen of a country four generations ago but apparently that still cascades down through the generations to apply to people. I mean, this is clearly where you are getting a number of people who are being caught who don't expect to be. You know, I readily acknowledge that's different to someone whose father was born or whose mother was born somewhere else, or they themselves were born somewhere else. But when you get a situation where it's like I said, two or three or four generations ago I mean frankly, I think that's farcical.
DAVID SPEERS: And any thoughts on who would replace Stephen Parry if he's knocked out?
STEVEN CIOBO: I'm not even gonna bother getting into all of that, I'll let you guys who are paid the big bucks in the press go and make all that sort of speculation.
DAVID SPEERS: Well, we'll try and get to your portfolio then, Steve Ciobo. Now China has today lifted a ban on six Australian abattoirs that export beef to China. Not the first time they have done this sort of thing, now you're obviously glad the ban's been lifted - have you gotten to the bottom of exactly why China banned these beef exports from Australia at all?
STEVEN CIOBO: Well, first of all this is great news, it's great news for the six facilities of course it's great news for the workers who are employed in those facilities and it's great news for the farmers that supply these facilities. I mean, there's a lot of livelihoods that are on the line, and I'm really pleased that Australian Authorities, Chinese Authorities, and the industry themselves were able to work constructively together, to reach a resolution that's got everyone now seeing resumption of what is a really big trade worth more than 800 million dollars, so I just wanna say-
DAVID SPEERS: What caused this in the first place?
STEVEN CIOBO: So, what we saw, wasn't that there was a problem with the meat or anything like that. We saw some, what I would describe as technical shortcomings, where for example, the labelling on the exterior of a box didn't match the product label of the meat that was inside the carton, for example. Those sort of technical issues, now there's no excuse-
DAVID SPEERS: What does that mean, so the export of the abattoir in Australia didn't put on the box what was in the box?
STEVEN CIOBO: Well, you get a mismatch between the product that's in the box versus what's labelled on the outside of the box. Now industry themselves have acknowledged that they-
DAVID SPEERS: Hang on sorry, I'm trying to understand this. I don't know how an abattoir could put what are they putting Scotch fillets on the outside of the box and it's T-bones inside or I don't quite understand how an abattoir can get that wrong?
STEVEN CIOBO: Well, look I think that that's a fair point David. I mean, I think that a lot of people would say, how do they get this wrong, especially when so much of this process is automated. Industry themselves acknowledge that these were shortcomings on their behalf and they doubled down in their resolution to make sure that they maintain quality assurance and they get this right, going forward. I think that's a really good outcome. We want industry to emerge from this stronger and better. We want Australian product to be regarded as the premium product that it should be, around the world. And making sure that we do not falter on these quality standards will be an integral part of making sure we achieve this.
DAVID SPEERS: We spoke to your Labor counterpart Jason Clare on the program yesterday, he's announced that Labor in Government would have the Productivity Commission review all free trade agreements before they're signed and enacted. Now the Business Council's welcomed this fairly warmly, what's wrong with the approach?
STEVEN CIOBO: Well, I think it's a ridiculous approach. I mean, what is it exactly that Labor's proposing the Productivity Commission actually does modelling on? Are they going to do modelling on the vibe of the trade deal? I mean, let's be clear, Labor's saying that the Productivity Commission should model the impact of a trade deal before the deals done. So before we actually know what is contained in the deal, they're saying the Productivity Commission should be doing modelling on it. I mean, it's obviously a ridiculous position, it won't work. Now, the far more logical approach is to say, once a trade deal is done, let's get that trade deal scrutinized. Now that's the process that currently happens. The trade deal is done, it's not legally enforceable because it hasn't been ratified by the Parliament. But it then goes to one of the Parliamentary Committees, the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, they analyse it, you get witnesses to come-
DAVID SPEERS: Well, what about bringing in the Productivity Commission at that point? I get the Parliamentarians are great at doing this as well, but they're not the Productivity Commission. With all due respect, why not bring in the Productivity Commission then?
STEVEN CIOBO: You know what David, this notion that the Productivity Commission is the be all and end all with their modelling. Again, I'm sorry, I think that that's important, I think that it's relevant, but it is not the be all and end all. The fact is that with economic modelling, especially on trade agreements, you more often than not, do not pick up the second round impacts, the second round benefits that flow from these trade deals. So let's not pretend that this is the holy grail, the Nirvana of trade deals is to have a Productivity Commission Report. I mean, there are stakeholders, whether they are private sector stakeholders, non-government organizations, a whole range of different stakeholders who all have input into the process. Ultimately, you've got to make calls about what is the best thing for the country, what pursues national interest, what drives economic growth, and most importantly what drives jobs. And that's why it's a Coalition and-
DAVID SPEERS: Yes, you're absolutely right-
STEVEN CIOBO: - we are so focussed on lining these up.
DAVID SPEERS: The Productivity Commission has backed a lot of things that Government reckons are terrific, and proposed a lot of things that the Government reckons are terrific, but when they criticized the Free Trade Deals that the Government's put in place, they are not to be trusted?
STEVEN CIOBO: No, David, I mean let's look at the China Australia Free Trade Agreement right. Bill Shorten called it a dud deal. The Labor Party, basically were opposed to it, until one minute to midnight. The Australian Union Movement ran one of the most disgraceful anti-China campaigns that, frankly, this country has seen. Yet what do we actually know-
DAVID SPEERS: I'm asking about the Productivity Commission, your Government's approach to the Productivity Commission. When they say things you agree with, they're terrific, and when they say things you disagree with, they're not so terrific.
STEVEN CIOBO: No, David, I'm sorry but I think that that's an incorrect assertion. The fact is the Productivity Commission has a lot to say on different issues. They are one voice, among many. Yes, we listen to what their contribution is, yes of course, it's a weighty contribution and it should be respected, that's precisely what the Government does. But mate, these guys are not the ones who dictate absolutely whether we do something or don't something. They are one voice among many. There's NGOs that are involved, there's business scripts that are involved, there's the Parliament itself that's involved, there's the policy settings of the Cabinet of the Minister that's involved. All of those are voices in a debate. So I would simply make the point, that to say that all of this should hang from the single thread of what the Productivity Commission says, even when the Productivity Commission themselves acknowledge that you won't pick up all of the second round benefits of a free trade deal, that's where you and I would disagree about the pathway forward.
DAVID SPEERS: Let me turn to the Queensland Election Campaign, your home state, the proposed Adani Coal Mine, it's a pretty big issue in this election campaign. It has the support of both the Queensland and the Federal Government of course, to go ahead but it just can't get finance it seems, from the Australian Banks, Indian Banks, it's now reported to be looking at China to help them finance the project, would that raise any foreign investment issues for the Australian Government?
STEVEN CIOBO: Well, any foreign investment that's coming to Australia, of course, is subject to scrutiny by the Foreign Investment Review Board. The Foreign Investment Review Board makes sure that we don't see investments into Australia that are contrary to our national interest. Now clearly, if you've got a major deal that's going ahead they will always look at what the implications of that might be on Australia's national interest. This will be no different.
DAVID SPEERS: Okay, but in principle, you have no problem with the largest open cut coal mine Australia's ever seen being financed by China?
STEVEN CIOBO: Again, you're making a whole bunch of assumptions in your question David-
DAVID SPEERS: I'm just asking if you have a problem with it.
STEVEN CIOBO: Well, where they get their money from is up to them. They will make a, they will enter into commercial arrangements with financiers on a project, assuming that it's commercial they can receive finance. Now, whether they are getting their finance from the United States, from China, from Japan, from India, from Australia, at the end of the day they'll put together a deal ... now let's not pretend that this is some fly by night operation, David. I mean, we are talking about a very significant operation involving international bankers, involving people from different countries, I mean let's not pretend that this is some kinda dodgy dealings that are happening here. Plus, there is the scrutiny in the safeguard- for the foreign investment review board to have a look at.
DAVID SPEERS: You can understand some being a bit dubious about it, when no bank here will fund this big coal mine in Australia?
STEVEN CIOBO: No, I mean unfortunately, we've seen the Australian Banking sector shirk from what I think are some very legitimate operations here in Australia. That's precisely the reason why David, I recently changed Efic's Mandate, the Australian Export Credit Agency, their mandate to provide financing to onshore resource projects. I mean, we have some very bankable, absolutely commercial projects in the resources sector of Australia, nothing to do with coal, nothing to do with coal. Bankable, backable projects in Australia that would help to drive Australian exports, help to create Australian jobs, and the Australian Banking sector says, no they won't touch it because it's in the resources space. I'm sorry, that's unacceptable.
DAVID SPEERS: They aren't the only ones. They not the only ones worried about this, Alan Jones, you might have seen it last night, saying this whole project is smelly, he reckons Adani donates to the major parties. Does Adani donate to the LNP?
STEVEN CIOBO: Truthfully, I would not know, I honestly could not tell you whether they've donated to Labor or donated to me. I don't look-
DAVID SPEERS: You're not curious about that? Would you, would you want to find out?
STEVEN CIOBO: No because, what are we talking about here, David? Are we talking about whether this business secures private sector finance for their operation? I mean, if you're asking me whether or not we should be vetoing who a private business secures finance off in the commercial marketplace, I mean that is an extraordinary intervention in the market, and I really can't see any government moving forward on that basis. I mean, that would be a highly radical idea to start having governments intervening into the commercial financing space on the basis of whose money we're saying someone can take.
DAVID SPEERS: Alright, Trade Minister Steve Ciobo we will have to leave it there, thank you for joining us this afternoon.
STEVEN CIOBO: Good to speak with you.