Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister, Assistant Minister for the Public Service, Assistant Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations
TOM CONNELL, HOST: Joining me, the Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister, Patrick Gorman. Former Liberal Member for Mackellar, Jason Falinski. Thanks both, for your time. So this warning from the Chinese ambassador, Patrick, is it fair to say when the ambassador for this super powerful country that's getting a foothold in your region, says 'don't spend more on defence' - you should definitely spend more on defence?
PATRICK GORMAN, ASSISTANT MINISTER TO THE PRIME MINISTER: Well, our position has been very clear for many years now, Tom. Which is, we make decisions about our defence spending in the Australian national interest. We look at what Australia needs for our security to make sure that we can trade with the world and engage with the world and preserve the rules-based order that served us so well. A range of nations will put their views, but the only view that matters to the Australian Government is what is in the Australian national interest.
CONNELL: Jason, waiting for the full defence policy for the Coalition during the election became 'Waiting for Godot.' Do we need from the Coalition now to not just talk about increased funding, but what they would actually do, what projects are needed in the short term?
JASON FALINSKI, FORMER LIBERAL MP FOR MACKELLAR: It's absolutely right, Tom. We need less rhetoric and more action. I think it was T. Roosevelt who said you should speak softly and carry a big stick, and that's essentially what we need from our defence of Australia these days, we should make it. We have certain strategic disadvantages. We're at the end of the world. We're a large country with a small number of people. But that doesn't mean that we should make it as difficult and as imposing as possible for any nation that is contemplating kinetic warfare against us, so that if they ever were contemplating that, they would think twice. Pat's right. Our defence policy should be what is in our national interests, not in the interests of other nations, and what is in the interests of the Australian people. And I'm sure we don't advise China what to do with their defence policy, and I don't think it is appreciated when they do the same thing to us.
CONNELL: I perish the thought if we dared to say something similar. So Pat, a lot of theories that Anthony Albanese is a bit wary of going to Washington for a one-on-one meeting with Donald Trump, because it's on his home ground, and this issue would come up - spend more on defence. Can you give a reason why Anthony Albanese hasn't followed other world leaders and had this meeting because that's the only way to get it, a direct meeting anytime soon, because the other methods haven't worked?
GORMAN: Well, I think your viewers know Tom and I'm pretty sure it's been reported on your programme, the Foreign Minister herself is on her way to the United States. The Prime Minister was there just over a week ago making an important announcement about further investment in tech, here in Australia. We have had the Prime Minister go as a guest of Canada to the G7 Leaders meeting. We continue to engage. Of course, we engage with the US President and his administration at every level. That's the important thing to do -
CONNELL: But no meeting at lower levels with Donald Trump does it - he's a capricious leader. Whatever he says sort of goes. I mean, you need a meeting between leaders. That's the only way things really happen.
GORMAN: I think again, Tom, what we know is that actually engaging with nations at every level is incredibly important. The Prime Minister, of course, has had conversations with President Trump. I am sure, some of my colleagues will be out joining our friends in the United States for Fourth of July celebrations, that are happening both here in Australia, and I'm sure some of our officials in Washington will be joining some celebrations in the United States as well. We will continue to engage at every level, including the Prime Minister, as he has continued to do -
CONNELL: Alright.
GORMAN: - throughout his time in office.
CONNELL: I'll give you a week off commenting on the awkwardness of you and your old boss, Kevin Rudd. What do you think Jason, is Kevin Rudd, costing Australia access now?
FALINSKI: Well, in full disclosure, I had breakfast with Kevin Rudd around about this time last year in Washington, and it's fair to say that he was highly regarded. He was highly regarded in Washington at that time, of course, that was under the Biden Administration, and he had positioned Australia and its embassy incredibly well as basically America's staunch ally in Asia, and someone that it could talk to and get real-time and very up-to-date information on this region. So at that time, at least, Kevin had done, sorry, Ambassador Rudd had done an incredibly good job at positioning Australia in Washington. I think at the moment, though, I do feel for Anthony Albanese. He was playing clearly a little bit of domestic politics earlier this year with Donald Trump, trying to position Peter Dutton as being closer to Donald Trump than he was. And I think that strategy worked very well at the election, but it's now rebounding a little bit on him now, and as we saw with Volodymyr Zelenskyy, he - I'm sure - he would be sweating at the moment that he might end up in the Oval Office with, you know, some sort of confrontation in front of the world's cameras. So this situation has got a little bit out of control, but it needs to get under control very quickly. Because what we saw in just the last week, is that the United States is one of those rare countries with its arsenal, that can change geopolitics in a given region.
CONNELL: Yeah, and look, it's not Anthony Albanese's fault what happened last time. But you got to, sort of, be nimble, I suppose. Let me just, might just ask unprompted Jason, what led to a breakfast between Ambassador Rudd, as you very dutifully called him, and the former member for Mackellar.
FALINSKI: Well, I just happened to be in Washington in June, and Ambassador Rudd heard that I was there, and his Chief of Staff reached out to myself and my travelling companions and said, 'hey, we'd love to have you around for breakfast.' Maybe I'm overstating the 'love' bit, but he was, he was a very gracious host and very informative. And I look back at that breakfast -
CONNELL: Well.
FALINSKI: - with a lot of fondness, I have to say. I can see why -
CONNELL: He like intellectual -
FALINSKI: I can see why Patrick is -
CONNELL: No. No.
FALINSKI: - so loyal to him and worked for him.
CONNELL: Well, he likes big, intellectual conversations. That's why Patrick worked for him, you had breakfast, and I've never interviewed him. Patrick, on the NACC then. We've got another finding out today. Now, it's interesting, because they've found corruption, and it's happened within Home Affairs. But the person responsible, who basically got a family member a job, has quit and therefore they're not going to be named. Basically, from what I can see, there's no consequence at all. Do their future employers or potential ones get told if they want a reference, 'by the way, this person's pretty dodgy'?
GORMAN: Well, I welcome the findings of the National Anti-Corruption Commission. It is good to see that the body that Labor legislated is now doing its job, and I respect the independence of the Commissioner. And so they have made these decisions about what information they will release, and what I really hope in my role as Assistant Minister for the Public Service, is that this sends an incredibly clear message to every public servant and anyone applying for a job in the public service. That is, that what matters is a fair process and a merit principle. There is no place for nepotism or special favours when it comes to the employment of people in the public service. It is there to serve the public and nothing else. And if people go about this sort of behaviour like what we have seen, they will be found, they will be caught and there are consequences.
CONNELL: What are they? What are the consequences here, for someone who's already quit?
GORMAN: Well, in this case, we have a finding this person has quit. And the Commissioner, from what I've seen in the report, said, that had they have not done that, they would have had their employment terminated under the Public Service Act. Now -
CONNELL: Right?
GORMAN: What I want to make sure -
CONNELL: So there are none?
GORMAN: - is that we have a strong, robust -
CONNELL: If they're going for a job, and they put Home Affairs down as a reference, do they get told that something went on?
GORMAN: Well, the Commissioner has extensive powers under the Act. They have chosen how to use those powers. I am not going to undermine the Commissioner by second-guessing that. What I do want to note though, is that it's important that this sends a message much more broadly across the system. And that message is; this sort of behaviour has absolutely no place in the Australian Public Service. It never has had any place in the public service. And now, because of the National Anti-Corruption Commission, which Labor put in place, people are being found out when they do the wrong thing, and they are acted upon.
CONNELL: Got to leave it there, Jason, I'm sorry. I know you would have pivoted to something good on ICAC, but I've got a press conference to get to today in person we'll talk again, Patrick and Jason, next week.
