Subjects: Tasmanian election; Working with Children Checks; China; AUKUS; Antisemitism; Privacy Act; Productivity Roundtable; Mark Latham
ANDREW CLENNELL, HOST: Joining me live is the Federal Attorney-General, Michelle Rowland. Thanks for your time. I have to start then on this Tasmanian election result. I know you're a NSW MP, so you're probably not that much into Tasmanian politics, but you'd have to say there's an argument for changing the Hare-Clark system, wouldn't you?
MICHELLE ROWLAND, ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I won't dictate to the Tasmanians on their systems, Andrew, but I think there is something to be said about the desire for stability, I think by all voters. I think that this has a bit of a way to go in terms of the count and in terms of who may be in a position to form what looks like minority government. What I can say, is that this government has demonstrated our ability to work under Premier Rockliff. Of course, whoever does become Premier, we will work with them in the interests of all Tasmanians.
CLENNELL: Shouldn't Dean Winter concede if he's only won 10 of 35 seats?
ROWLAND: Well, again, I think this has a bit to play out and Tasmanians have spoken and I think it's now time to work out what they've said. I think once that is done, then there'll be much better opportunity to comment.
CLENNELL: It's a remarkably different result to what happened in Tasmania in the federal poll. Is there anything you can put that down to, in your view?
ROWLAND: I think partly it is the different systems of electoral processes, but also I think that this was an election where, as far as I'm aware, there were no particular federal issues that were being raised. Of course, there were those issues about the stadium and there were particular views put forward by different candidates on that. I think Tasmanians will be looking for stability of government and I hope they get it.
CLENNELL: The Federal Government is chipping in money for that stadium. Are you surprised at how it's become such a divisive issue for Tasmanians?
ROWLAND: Look, I think there's always been two sides to this, but in the end, our position has been that this is about inclusiveness, about growth and about economic prosperity.
CLENNELL: Now, there are calls from the NSW Premier this morning for a national Working with Children Checks system. This is after the terrible childcare centre crimes in Victoria and this has been reported in the Sunday Telegraph. Is this something you might consider?
ROWLAND: This is something we are actively doing now. This is actually the first item on the agenda for my first Standing Council of Attorneys-General, which I chair in a couple of weeks. I've been in direct contact with my counterparts, both formally and also engaging with them, about the need to have reform in this area.
Andrew, I think your viewers may be shocked to learn this was actually a recommendation coming out of a 2015 series of responses on the Royal Commission into Child Sexual Abuse. We're now in 2025. What is important here is that we have action. The Federal Government has not been idle. We have been undertaking work to ensure that we do have some mechanisms that are in place. We've got a pilot that's being established now. But what is essential here is twofold. Firstly, we've got different states and territories with their own schemes for Working with Children Checks and reportable conduct - they do not talk to other states and there is no system of oversight. So, the piece of work that we have, and what I have before me as Attorney-General, is to ensure that we have a solution that allows near real-time reporting, access to data, making sure that we've got consistency and uniformity across that.
I look forward to working with all of my counterparts to make this happen. Again, we need to be honest, this is not going to resolve everything that we have in the system, but it will be a significant step forward. As I said, this is is the first item on the agenda and it's one that I will pursue. I welcome the campaign that's being conducted to give added momentum to that as well.
CLENNELL: What other tighter controls that perhaps you haven't announced could you consider? What do you make of the calls for, just for safety's sake, men not to work in childcare centres at all?
ROWLAND: Look, I think Minister Jason Clare is working on one side of that, which is around withholding funding in cases where certain quality standards aren't met. But there is a whole suite of measures that have been looked at for some time. I think the issue here is about delivering on them and they go to everything from CCTV to Working with Children's Checks, for example. I think that there is a definite, a definite urgency here and it's been there for some time. Again we need to act not only in the national interest, but as showing leadership from the Federal Government in this area. That's something that I will do in the Attorney-General's portfolio and I know Minister Clare will be doing on the education side.
CLENNELL: So, the PMs arrived back from China and he's been accused by the opposition of taking a working holiday. I mean, why did he go for six whole days?
ROWLAND: Well, firstly, I find that criticism quite extraordinary considering that since we came to government, we have removed some $20 billion of trade impediments with China. We now have in everything from wine to lobster, not to mention the fact that China is our single biggest trading partner, our resources sector relies on that relationship. This was at the invitation, we should remember, of China to attend this, and the PM did not go alone. He went with a significant business delegation. This is about creating jobs and extra trade opportunities for Australia and it's important that we maintain this vital relationship.
CLENNELL: How do you think the US will view the trip?
ROWLAND: Well, again, our relationship with China is obviously important, as is our relationship with the United States, but here there are different purposes. We will engage in the national interest wherever we can with China. We will always act in the national interest and often we will disagree. But this is important from the perspective of our trade and of stabilising that relationship, which quite frankly had broken down under successive Liberal governments. It's important that we have a government now that's acting in our national interest, in the interest of jobs and trade uncertainty.
CLENNELL: What do you make of the suggestion by Eldridge Colby reported that in the US, for the AUKUS agreement to continue, we would have to agree to taking part in a war in the Indo-Pacific with the US?
ROWLAND: Well, again, I'm not going to engage in hypotheticals, and we do not support a unilateral change in the current relationship that is there. What I will note, in going to a related issue about defence spending, is that we recognise the US has called for this of a number of its allies, but again, I would point out that we are spending some $10 billion over the forwards and nearly $60 billion over the next decade on defence spending. We will act always in the national interest and we will ensure that our capabilities are up to scratch.
CLENNELL: You're part of, in your new role, part of the National Security Committee of Cabinet now. So, are you concerned at the future of AUKUS and the American review of it?
ROWLAND: Well, obviously I won't comment on deliberations of that, but I will note that AUKUS has bipartisan support. There is nothing unusual about a new administration having a review of these relationships. But again, we view AUKUS as fundamental to our relationship with the United States and we are confident in its execution.
CLENNELL: Since you got the portfolio, there was a little bit of talk about the Australian Federal Police being taken out of it and given to Home Affairs. What did you think of that change?
ROWLAND: Look, the Machinery of Government changes happen as a matter of course, across a number of portfolios. The AFP and ASIO were moved into Home Affairs and I totally support the Prime Minister's view on that.
CLENNELL: I wanted to ask about the Jillian Segal report on antisemitism. Have some of the recommendations here given the government headaches? Were you and your department asked for your advice on the report recommendations and what was that advice?
ROWLAND: Well, obviously this was a report to government, not of government. So, obviously the Attorney-General's department has had a role in a number of matters that have been done to date, including in terms of doxxing and also in terms of the legislative changes about criminalising the Nazi salute and symbols. This is a report that's been undertaken by Jillian Segel as the Special Envoy.
I think what's important here is that there are a number of recommendations that go to what I think is critical to support social cohesion in this area, and we will be examining that closely. Myself as Attorney-General, I'll be doing that. I think what's important here is recognising that, that the kinds of antisemitism that we have seen are completely unacceptable. The appointment of Jillian Segel as the Special Envoy in this area, I think, firstly, this is an important report, but secondly, I think that her presence there and her ongoing oversight in that role will be critical in any steps that we take going forward.
CLENNELL: Is it a sign of the headaches some of these recommendations have created that you're delaying the government response to the higher education component until after there's a report on Islamophobia and should Jewish students have to wait that long?
ROWLAND: Look, I think Minister Clare is undertaking this task as he sees fit and he is doing that in a most excellent way. I think the fact that we do have in train a number of aspects that go to social cohesion in our universities demonstrate that we take this seriously.
CLENNELL: There's planned anti-Israel protests at Parliament, I'm told, the next three days. Are you concerned about trouble here? Do you have any advice on it?
ROWLAND: We live in a free country where people are free to conduct this freedom of expression in that form, but obviously we don't want to see violence. I'm sure that we'll be briefed in due course as updates are available.
CLENNELL: You're planning reform of the Privacy Act. What does this involve, particularly around the tech giants?
ROWLAND: Well, this is the second tranche of privacy reforms. I think it's fair to say, Andrew, that Australians are sick and tired of their personal information not only being exploited for benefit by third parties, but also the way in which that information is not being protected. We've seen that in recent times with data breaches, both by Australian companies as well as multinational tech giants.
Now, the point that I have made, and I will continue to make, is that we will not have our privacy reforms dictated by multinational tech giants who are trying to assert that you can either have innovation or you can have privacy protection, but not both. I reject that completely. The Government rejects that. We will always ensure that reform in this area is in the best interests of Australians, that it's workable, that it does provide a basis for both innovation and the protection of people's personal data. That's what Australians would expect.
CLENNELL: Do you think religious freedom reforms are dead now?
ROWLAND: The Prime Minister made it clear, and the position still stands, that we will only be pursuing this with bipartisan support. I don't think anyone wants a situation where we have a piece of legislation that's aimed to unite people, actually resulting in less social cohesion. In the last couple of months, I've met with a number of groups and reiterated that position. That is well understood.
CLENNELL: When it comes to the Productivity Roundtable coming up, the Treasurer has been criticised for not inviting miners. Could we see a new mining tax? Is the Government looking to increase taxes?
ROWLAND: We're not looking at this. I think the fact that the Productivity Roundtable is being held demonstrates that, led by the most able Treasurer, we have a broad agenda for reform. Obviously there are people who would like to be personally invited to this. There is only so much capacity that can be done in this particular environment. But again, I would make the point that this isn't simply a one day, one meeting issue. This is an ongoing dialogue that the Treasurer and the entire economic team and the government have been having with industry to examine ways in which we can increase our productivity. The way that you do that is by sitting down with industry, with workers representatives and the government to come to some meaningful recommendations and change. That's precisely what's been done.
CLENNELL: You're a member of the NSW right faction, which Mark Latham used to be a part of. Should his face remain up in the Caucus room?
ROWLAND: This is a matter that's being considered at the moment. I'm sure there'll be a lot of different views here and I think probably the key point to make is that the question is arising not simply because he was a Labor leader who let the party to defeat - I mean, there's a lot of people on that wall who lost elections - the fact is that this goes to certain behaviours and conduct that have been observed over a period of time that a number of people feel do not warrant his portrait being displayed. Those conversations will happen. I'll participate in those as well. I'll have more to say later on.
CLENNELL: What's your view?
ROWLAND: My view is that I will continue to consult with colleagues as well. Some people feel very strongly about this and in due course I'll have more to say.
CLENNELL: Well, how about you have something to say now?
ROWLAND: Because, I'm going to engage with my colleagues on the matter. It's not a single person Caucus.
CLENNELL: Do you know what the Prime Minister's view is?
ROWLAND: I haven't asked him personally, no.
CLENNELL: Do you have any view on whether Mark Latham should remain in the NSW Parliament?
ROWLAND: Well, the way I view this Andrew, is that coming from a corporate background, you question whether there are certain behaviours that would be tolerated in the private sector. I think it's fair to say that some of them wouldn't. But again, as Premier Minns has said, this is not - Parliament isn't really a normal workplace -It's not one where he can simply sack a Member as you would probably do in the corporate sector if there were sufficient evidence of wrongdoing. So, that's the lens through which I view it. I view it about whether as to whether this would be tolerated in any other way workplace in Australia, certainly it seems that from some of the allegations that have been made that some of those actions would not be tolerated.
CLENNELL: Michelle Rowland, thanks so much for your time.
ROWLAND: Pleasure.
