SUBJECTS: HERITAGE LISTING FOR VICTORIAN TRADES HALL, VOICE TO PARLIAMENT.
RAFAEL EPSTEIN: The Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek is on her way to Melbourne, if she hasn’t already arrived, for a specific heritage listing.
Good morning, Tanya Plibersek.
TANYA PLIBERSEK, MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT AND WATER: It’s great to talk to you, Raf. How are you?
RAFAEL EPSTEIN: I’m good. What’s getting listed and why?
MINISTER PLIBERSEK: The Victorian Trades Hall is being added to the National Heritage List today. And our government, the Commonwealth government, working with the Victorian state government is pursuing global World Heritage status for the Victorian Trades Hall as well. It’s a really special building. I mean, it’s beautiful, obviously, to look at, but what it represents is really important as well. It’s the site where people fought for and won the 8-hour working day, campaigns on equal pay, against conscription, against apartheid. It’s been part of all of those struggles.
RAFAEL EPSTEIN: Why does it deserve global recognition? Is that a push for a bit of partisan global recognition?
MINISTER PLIBERSEK: No, this is – there’s actually an international bid being led by Denmark. There’s a workers museum in Denmark, and they’ve gone and looked around the world to these really historic buildings, including in Finland, Belgium, Argentina and the UK as well as here in Australia and obviously in Denmark. And they’re saying this was a time when workers that were often living in slum conditions actually banded together to build these magnificent buildings where they educated themselves, they organised, they worked together to campaign for better pay and conditions as well as a whole lot of other social justice things that they were working for at that time. And it’s worth internationally recognising this.
RAFAEL EPSTEIN: I’m just curious, the Trades Hall, corner of Lygon and Victoria streets, just before you plunge on into the city, a lot of people might only go there now to see a comedy show – why does it need international protection or recognition, Tanya Plibersek? Just explain to me why. I mean, we’ve got state laws to cover this stuff. Why do you need the international recognition?
MINISTER PLIBERSEK: Well, we’ve got state laws, and today’s announcement is that we’re giving it national protection. And that means that if there’s any developments, say, that might affect the building then tit has to go through the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act to make sure that there are no negative impacts. But international recognition is not so much to protect it but to celebrate it. And it’s part of the celebration of workers organising that the government of Denmark has been leading. So, the Victorian Trades Hall is just one of the places that the international bid will acknowledge.
RAFAEL EPSTEIN: If I can turn our attention to the Voice vote which, of course, a lot of people have already voted on the referendum and most people will vote on Saturday. Was it a mistake to not detail a bit more how it might work earlier on this year? Would that have helped the Yes vote?
MINISTER PLIBERSEK: Well, I think there’s already a lot of detail out there, Raf, about the fact that it will have representatives from every state and territory and the Torres Strait, it will be gender balanced, it will have a youth voice. But our constitution gives the power to the commonwealth government to raise taxes, but it doesn’t say how much tax should be raised or what kind of taxes should be collected. You know, the commonwealth – the constitution gives us the power to set up a Defence Force, but it doesn’t say how many aircrafts the air force should have. The whole idea of having recognition in the constitution is, first of all, our constitution, our founding document, the document from which all our laws flow, should recognise that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have a special place in our country. And, secondly, that they should have a voice, they should have a say, they should be able to give advice on issues that affect them.
Now, this will change over time. Governments have to have the flexibility to make the voice bigger or smaller, to change the way that it operates to make it more effective over time. And that shouldn’t be detailed in the constitution. That decision should be left up to the government of the day. But I think there’s a few important things to say about Saturday. This is a chance to say yes to reconciliation, yes to recognition, yes to listening, yes to better advice and consequently yes to better outcomes. The body won’t have a veto, it won’t direct the budget, and it’s an idea that’s supported by well over 80 per cent of Indigenous Australians. So this is a great opportunity for Australia to get this right. We’ve been doing so much of what doesn’t work and a no vote is a vote for more of the same.
RAFAEL EPSTEIN: Some of the, if not the main argument, from the No side are that it’s risky and divisive. Are you effectively saying that those arguments are not good faith arguments?
MINISTER PLIBERSEK: I don’t think – it’s certainly not risky. I mean, what are we doing? Recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who’ve been here for 65,000 years and have a special place in Australian history. Well, that’s not risky. And, in fact, the Liberals and Nationals say that they support that.
RAFAEL EPSTEIN: If I can interrupt, what I’m asking is do you think – I understand you disagree with those arguments - but are they arguments put forward in good faith?
MINISTER PLIBERSEK: I think there’s been a lot of deliberate misinformation and a lot of deliberately divisive arguments put by the No case. I don’t think – I’m sure that there are many people who are genuinely thinking this through and have come to a No conclusion, and I respect that. Do I –
RAFAEL EPSTEIN: That vibe doesn’t come off from the Yes side. A lot of the arguments are dismissed rather than engaged with.
MINISTER PLIBERSEK: Yeah, well, I don’t know that that’s a fair comment, really. And certainly I’ve been prepared to debate people who come to this with a different opinion and come in good faith for a genuine discussion. But I also think there is an element of this that has come from Peter Dutton and the leadership of the No campaign that hasn’t been an argument, a genuine argument in good faith. And, in fact, what are they saying? They’re saying that things are fine, they don’t need changing, there should be more of the same? Well, of course I disagree with that.
RAFAEL EPSTEIN: Thank you for your time. Good luck with the heritage listing for the Trades Hall. Thank you.
MINISTER PLIBERSEK: Thanks so much, Raf.
RAFAEL EPSTEIN: Tanya Plibersek Environment Minister, she’s also the ALP MP for the seat of Sydney in Sydney.
END
