Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister
GREG JENNETT, HOST: Why don't we bring in our political panel? All for the day. And joining us, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister, Patrick Gorman is back. Welcome, Pat. And Liberal Senator Linda Reynolds is here to once again making up a West Australian contingent. So why don't we start Patrick Gorman with the censure. We just heard Paul Fletcher and Linda will, I'm sure, argue that this was completely unnecessary and entirely politically motivated. You could have got the desired result to prevent a repeat of the Morrison ministries by bringing the legislation in today.
PATRICK GORMAN, ASSISTANT MINISTER TO THE PRIME MINISTER: Well, legislation is an action for the Executive Government to initiate, but this was an opportunity for the entire Parliament to assert the Parliament's view about upholding the traditions which we all rely upon. There was not one credible reason given in that entire debate as to why this was kept secret from the Australian people. And I don't come here just on my own behalf. I come here on behalf of the people I represent. And the people in my community said this was completely inexcusable. And in fact, I think that in the middle of a pandemic, it was the worst time for someone to be trying to undermine a democratic institution.
JENNETT: Were you torn at all in coming to that decision? Because I noticed a number of Labor speakers started their contributions with disclaimers, saying, "look, it's with a heavy heart that we do this" or "we don't want to be here". Did you stop to reflect on the stain that you leave on Morrison? Any former Prime Minister, I suppose, has exalted position in our country. Did you reflect on that?
GORMAN: I reflected on both the question of the seriousness of a censure of a former Prime Minister and indeed someone who's still in the House today. But equally, I reflect on the fact that this was not in any way something that the Labor Party or the new government chose to happen. This was something that went on to the record because the former Prime Minister was briefing journalists at the same time that he was not telling his Ministerial colleagues. Linda was in the cabinet and she did not know. And I do not think any parliamentarian can accept that as an acceptable way for a Prime Minister to act.
JENNETT: All right, Linda. Well, it is ultimately the secrecy and by extension, the lack of trust in democracy that is the fallout of the aftermath of all of this. If you were personally disappointed by that secrecy, what's your own position? Could you have supported a similar motion in your own shape?
LINDA REYNOLDS, LIBERAL SENATOR: No, and I think what Pat has just said is very duplicitous because he is actually a member of the Executive Government that has taken this action today, which is clearly a political stunt. And if it was really about the people of Western Australia that we both represent, it would be about cost of living. But as Paul Fletcher has just mentioned to you as well, is that this is a stunt. It is not about the cost of living issues which are fundamental. And we have said there are some good recommendations and sensible recommendations in the Bell report, and the Government could have brought forward legislation today to implement it in this Parliament, but they have chosen a stunt instead and it is very disappointing.
JENNETT: So will Scott Morrison's name forever be tarnished because of this action, but also his own?
REYNOLDS: I certainly hope not, because as a Cabinet Minister throughout his time as Prime Minister, including during two of the most challenging years we have had pandemic national security, he did an extraordinary job. He did an extraordinary job. He led our national response. He saved, together with the team, at least 40,000 Australian lives. There is no other economy who has come out better than Australia. So, I think it would be a shame and an injustice if this government allowed the previous government's record to be tarnished on the basis of a political stunt.
JENNETT: All right. And on the legislation, Pat Gorman, when can we expect that remedy to be introduced to the Parliament and pushed through so it does not happen again?
GORMAN: Yeah, obviously, the government has already said that we accept all six recommendations of the Bell Inquiry. We will be acting upon those. The inquiry only came out just a few days ago. We want to act as quickly as possible because we do not want to see this happen again. And we want to, with the heavy responsibility of government at a time where actions such as this have reduced trust in the institution of government, we want to do everything we can to lift that standard again.
JENNETT: This year?
REYNOLDS: No.
GORMAN: You will see some announcements from the Government when we are ready to introduce that legislation.
REYNOLDS: Greg, I think that is a no. I think that is a very clear, "no, not this year".
JENNETT: I know there was a goal to try to achieve it this year, whether they actually make it. I mean, you have been in government before, Linda. I suppose you would acknowledge that sometimes there is a slip between when it comes to drafting and Parliamentary Counsel and all of those …
REYNOLDS: Six recommendations. Legislation on that could have been drafted very quickly. And instead of wasting the time on a political stunt today, we could have actually had legislation introduced. But of course, it is not going to be this year, because this is the last sitting week for this year.
JENNETT: Yeah, all right. Well, look, the Government, the Albanese Government now finishes with a bit of a flourish. Industrial relations almost certainly going to go through. It is just a matter of time now. And then finally, the Anti-corruption Commission. That did happen today. So the search for a Commissioner, I think, would happen next. Is that reasonable to expect? Are you drawing up lists?
GORMAN: It is good news for the Australian people that now they know that the actions that all parliamentarians in this building undertake will be under the scrutiny of a national anti-corruption commission with strong powers, retrospective powers, and also an education function to make sure that we actually lift the standards. In terms of searching for that incredibly important role of a commissioner and, indeed, the first, we obviously put very strong guidelines around how that process will be handled, how it will be done in a thorough, open, merit-based process. There will obviously be some parliamentary involvement in that as well, which is part of the changes that have gone through the Senate. And we do have, as we have been saying, one of the reasons that it is been so ridiculous that we do not have such a body at a federal level as we have such a good architecture of anti-corruption bodies around Australia, and Australia, indeed, is very well linked in with anticorruption bodies around the world. So that search will begin. But I am also very conscious that I do not want to say too much about what I think that person should have, because it is an office that has to have the utmost respect of every person in this Parliament.
JENNETT: It is probably as sensitive a process as the selection of a Member of the High Court bench, I imagine. You are broadly going to welcome the passage of the legislation and establishment of the Commission, I suppose, Linda. How important is that appointment going to be? And what change was it that the Senate kind of negotiated here around your own parliamentary approval?
REYNOLDS: First of all, I am very supportive of this and I think for the integrity of our Parliament and our government and officials as well, this is incredibly important. But it was important to get the details right, because, as Pat has said, we have got them in states and territories, some of them work well and some of them do not. So, it was very important to make sure that we did not have show trials. That things were not played out in the media in a more political sense, and destroying lives leading to suicides, et cetera. So, I think that demonstrates the Parliament, I think, at its best. We had very sensible debates in both chambers. We had some sensible amendments in the Senate yesterday which amended but strengthened the role of the Commissioner and the powers, which was accepted only a couple of hours ago in the House of Reps. So, I think this is a great example of the Parliament really at its finest.
JENNETT: Why don't we round out with dual track developments on Indigenous affairs? Because we had Closing the Gap, which never makes for pleasing reading or pleasant reading. Once again, that's the case. Set against a backdrop of some pretty fierce debate around this place, with the Nationals taking their position against the Voice. How do those two come together, do you think?
GORMAN: Well, I think, firstly, on the Closing the Gap report, there is encouraging news in terms of birth weight for babies. There's encouraging news in terms of number of children entering preschool, but the statistics around suicide, adult incarceration, still completely unacceptable. And you can't look at that report and not think that every political party represented in this building has not done enough. And the Prime Minister said as much himself. So I guess what we see in the government is there's an opportunity to build a new way of doing policy development, co-design and working with Indigenous communities. And we see that doing that through a structure such as a Voice is part of all of the action that is needed. And I just want to echo the sentiments of another great West Australian, Ken Wyatt, who today encouraged all Australians to read the Indigenous Voice Co-design Process report, where he said, "read pages 16 to 19". And I have read that entire report, but I would say he is 100 per cent right. Read pages 16 to 19 and you will understand the detail, you will understand how it is going to make Australia a stronger nation.
JENNETT: It was very specific advice from Ken, Linda, which rather undercuts the Nationals' argument that we had to make this decision because we have a vacuum of detail coming. That's not exactly true, is it?
REYNOLDS: Well, it is absolutely true to say that in relation to the Voice, that it's over four months since Garma, since the Prime Minister's Garma speech, and we still have no more details. So, it is incredibly difficult to make a decision on something we do not know the important details on. But coming back to where I see the Voice, and I know many of my colleagues do - it is going out to communities in Western Australia, as I did as the NDIS Minister, and going into community and just seeing the pages of a report in local communities and seeing the disadvantage, the violence. Our detention centres in WA have twice the national average of ten to 17 year olds in detention. So, to me, the most important thing, as Peter Dutton said, is listening to the voices of those in local communities. And that's really at the heart of what Ken Wyatt is talking about. So that is the detail I would love to see from this Government. How are they going to hear the voices of those who need it the most?
JENNETT: Well, somehow I think we will be discussing that upon your return, both of you, next year, because that will dominate the political landscape through different parts of the year next year. Linda Reynolds and Pat Gorman, thanks for your support on the programme throughout the year, and including today. An early Merry Christmas to you both.
REYNOLDS: Merry Christmas.
GORMAN: Thank you, Greg. Merry Christmas to your viewers.
