MARK DREYFUS
SHADOW ATTORNEY-GENERAL
SHADOW MINISTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM
MEMBER FOR ISAACS
E&OE TRANSCRIPT
TELEVISION INTERVIEW
ABC TV AFTERNOON BRIEFING
WEDNESDAY, 27 NOVEMBER, 2019
SUBJECTS: Robodebt; Medevac; Angus Taylor; Unions.
PATRICIA KARVELAS: I'm joined now by the Shadow Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus. Mark Dreyfus, welcome.
MARK DREYFUS, SHADOW ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Good to be with you, Patricia.
KARVELAS: Before we get to this Angus Taylor matter - which of course has been dominating - the Federal Government has lost a significant legal challenge to Robodebt with the Federal Court ruling that the debt was unlawful. Now, Victorian Legal Aid brought forward the challenge and Justice Davies ruled the Commonwealth must reimburse this women at the centre of this and pay her legal fees. What's your reaction to this judgement?
DREYFUS: This judgement simply confirms Patricia that we have got a Commonwealth Government that has been extorting money from Australian citizens with no basis for doing so.
It's an extraordinary scandal, Robodebt. What we have is a government that's been prepared to send out claims to hundreds of thousands of Australians, knowing that on the Government's own reckoning, more than a fifth - more than a fifth - are wrong. And this is one of them.
I just think that the Prime Minister owes the Australian people an apology for this extraordinary program that - I will say it again - it is extorting money, making false demands of Australian citizens.
KARVELAS: What are the consequences of this decision, given, of course, even the legal fees have to be reimbursed? Could it have consequences for other people in the same situation?
DREYFUS: Absolutely it could have consequences and Id be calling on the Government to re-examine every case where they have made one of these demands using automated algorithm-driven information, to examine every single case - including the ones where people have been too terrified to protest or challenge, unlike this case where Victoria Legal Aid were able to represent the person who received the demand. I would be calling on the Government to examine every single case which they have used this algorithm-driven process for.
KARVELAS: In the wake of the judgement, of course, there is another legal case pending. Shouldn't all of these legal cases be established first before the Government moves to make any further alterations?
DREYFUS: On the contrary, the other case - the class action - is a challenge to the entire program, saying, without needing to look at any individual case, that there was an unlawful demand being made, that the whole basis of this program was unlawful. Anyway. That's a matter that's about to be litigated as well.
I think it's already clear to Australians what the nature of this government is - it's prepared to send out knowingly false demands to hundreds of thousands of Australians. It's no way to run a benefits system.
KARVELAS: Just on another issue, Jacqui Lambie has released a statement and has said she will support the repeal of the Medevac legislation on one condition, and she won't reveal the details of that one condition in relation to national security concerns. Is that a good enough justification? Should we know what the condition is?
DREYFUS: Well, let's wait and see. Jacqui Lambie's established a reputation for weighing up the evidence. On weighing up the evidence, Jacqui said she doesn't believe the Medevac law has interfered with the protection of our borders. She's prepared to change her position in respect of the bill that's before the Senate on this one condition. Let's wait and see what that condition is. But I think everyone who has seen her statement and has listened to her can see just how thorough her assessment has been.
KARVELAS: And does Labor have any indication of what that condition might be?
DREYFUS: No, we don't.
KARVELAS: OK. Just on this Angus Taylor matter, which has been unfolding in Question Time over the last day, Labor is now demanding a transcript of that conversation with the New South Wales Police Commissioner and the Prime Minister, all of its details in a transcript. Why should we see a transcript?
DREYFUS: Because this is a call which should never have been made. It's reflective of appalling judgement on the part of this Prime Minister, who seems to have forgotten that he's not some Liberal headkicker, trying to protect one of his Cabinet mates, he's the Prime Minister of this country.
It's completely wrong for him to have called directly - on his mobile we learnt from the Police Commissioner in the press conference this morning - called him three times, and because the Police Commissioner didn't have the number in his phone, he didn't pick up. But apparently he finally got through.
It's a call which should never have been made. It is wrong at every level. It's compromised the Police Commissioner, it's compromised the investigation, and one can only imagine the pressure that's now been put on the actual police officers who are conducting this investigation, the police officers who make up the strike force that the New South Wales Police have established.
KARVELAS: Are you suggesting that Scott Morrison's call to Commissioner Mick Fuller was an attempt to influence the investigation into Angus Taylor? Or just that it's a bad look?
DREYFUS: We don't know what the Prime Minister said to the Police Commissioner. We don't know what the Police Commissioner said in return. We do know from Question Time today that there's a complete inconsistency between the way in which the Prime Minister tried yesterday to describe his phone call to the Police Commissioner. The Police Commissioner has said this morning that it was a very short call. The Police Commissioner has said that he said no more than what had already been stated in the media on behalf of the New South Wales Police. The Prime Minister told the Parliament yesterday that it had gone to the substance of the charges. Now, they both can't be right. That's why we need to see a transcript.
The Prime Minister stonewalled, in effect, throughout Question Time today, because he ought to be embarrassed. He ought to be embarrassed by his own performance. He ought to be embarrassed by the contempt that he has shown for the integrity of our system of government, and he ought to be embarrassed that he hasn't applied the standards of John Howard, the standards of Malcolm Turnbull, which would require him to immediately stand-down this Cabinet Minister, who has used a forged document, while a Cabinet Minister, to attack a political opponent.
It's just extraordinary, Patricia, that this Prime Minister's standards seem to be in the gutter, and he needs to actually pay attention to past practice here. Not of Labor governments I'm pointing to - although in Labor governments there's plenty of ministers that were stood down over the past 30 or 40 years - this is Liberal governments.
KARVELAS: It is interesting you say that. Even in Question Time the Prime Minister mentioned an inquiry into Julia Gillard. He mentioned Bill Shorten.
DREYFUS: Ridiculously, Patricia. I will just say this...
KARVELAS: But they didn't stand aside. That was the argument he was making.
DREYFUS: In neither case was the investigation concerning their conduct as ministers. That is the most extraordinary and ridiculous thing about the way this Prime Minister is trying to scrape the bottom of the barrel. This is a criminal investigation by a strike force established by the New South Wales Police into a serving Cabinet Minister, about his conduct as a Cabinet Minister. If ever you wanted an example of a Cabinet Minister that should be stood down, it's this one.
KARVELAS: The New South Wales Police Commissioner says he didn't feel intimidated by the Prime Minister's call, and he only gave Scott Morrison information that was contained in the press release, and that's a point you just made. Do you accept the New South Wales Police Commissioner's account?
DREYFUS: Of course. This is in no way a criticism of Police Commissioner Fuller. What is a Police Commissioner to do when told that the Prime Minister of Australia is on the phone? He has to take the call. But it's a call which should never have been made. Our criticism is directed at the appalling lack of judgement that's been demonstrated here.
KARVELAS: Who should have made the call?
DREYFUS: At the very most there should have been an enquiry made by a senior public servant - perhaps the Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, would have been an appropriate person - whose inquiry should have limited to, "Is there an investigation on foot?" It's not necessary for further details to be known because as soon as the Prime Minister is made aware that there is a criminal investigation into one of his own ministers, he has no other choice, based on past practice, but to stand that minister aside for the duration of the investigation. And Angus Taylor has also shown appalling judgement. He should have stood himself aside, just like Arthur Sinodinos did when he was under investigation.
KARVELAS: Centre Alliance Senator Rex Patrick says the fact that the Prime Minister and the Police Commissioner know each other, the neighbours kind of information we found out about, makes the call more inappropriate. Mick Fuller says he was joking when he said the PM used to bring in his bins. Is it just a joke? Are you satisfied with that?
DREYFUS: I don't think that's the central part of it. It's an added concern, of course, that at least one of them is claiming to have had some personal relationship. But I would say again, Patricia, this is a call which should never have been made by the Prime Minister. It shows he thinks he can fix things by picking up the phone. He didn't think through what the consequences were, he didn't think through how he was going to compromise the Police Commissioner, let alone the potential effect on the investigation itself.
We need to know what the Prime Minister said. We need to clear up the discrepancy that's now there in public view between what the Police Commissioner says occurred and what the Prime Minister was verballing the Police Commissioner with yesterday afternoon. It's too late now. The call can't be unmade, but it should never have been made in the first place.
KARVELAS: If the New South Wales Police investigate and decide there's nothing to it, will Labor let this go?
DREYFUS: If the police decide that no criminal offence has been committed, that does not absolve this Minister. He has used a forged document.
KARVELAS: But if the police can't establish this, how can you be sure it was a forged document?
DREYFUS: I don't think we have yet got to a position where the standard for whether or not a minister should continue in office is whether he has been found guilty of a criminal offence or been charged with a criminal offence. This is still morally reprehensible conduct. It is conduct that is well below the standard that a good government, a government that cared about integrity, would expect of its ministers.
We have got, on the public record, a Cabinet minister who has used a forged document to attack a political opponent. He has not explained the circumstances. He's talked nonsense to you. I heard you interviewing Mr Taylor last week, Patricia and he refused point blank to answer your perfectly reasonable questions which were directed at who has been investigated, who in his office is responsible for the production of the forgery, why did he use this forged document? He has answered none of these questions and he actually should go.
Mr Morrison should have dismissed him long ago. We see the result and Liberals might well be thinking, "What on Earth is going on here?" because the only thing ministers are now being asked about and the only thing that the Prime Minister is being asked about is the appalling conduct of Angus Taylor as a Cabinet Minister.
KARVELAS: Angus Taylor maintains the incorrect figures he used to criticise the City of Sydney's travel came from a report that was on the Council's website, but hasn't explained the discrepancy but he says thats where it came from. Can the Parliament force him to do that? I mean, if the criminal investigation finds nothing or can't establish a case, what can the Parliament do?
DREYFUS: This government has gagged debate, and almost unprecedentedly the Opposition Leader has been shut down, refused by the Prime Minister the right to even make a short speech about this matter. So, that's the attitude of the Government. It doesn't want scrutiny by the press, it doesn't want scrutiny by the Parliament, it doesn't want scrutiny by the Australian people.
But on the point of Angus Taylor's misleading of the House of Representatives, the City of Sydney has said directly that the forged document that he used did not come from the City of Sydney's website, and that's where it sits. We've got a false claim being made by Angus Taylor that the document came from the City of Sydney's website. The City of Sydney has denied it, and at the moment, it looks like Angus Taylor has misled the Parliament.
He's got many questions that remain unanswered. We know nothing about what happened in his office. He's so incurious about the forged document he hasn't investigated about who in his office is responsible and nor is the Prime Minister, who is equally incurious. His interest is not in the integrity of his government, its in making the defence of his cabinet mate, Angus Taylor.
KARVELAS: So, where does it leave you? Because New South Wales Police are investigating. Doesn't that mean Labor should perhaps park its questioning on this until we have an outcome from police and we know what they have decided to do or whether they think they can establish that a law has been broken?
DREYFUS: As I said before Patricia, the New South Wales Police are investigating whether or not a criminal offence - a breach of the New South Wales Crimes Act - has been committed. Last time I looked that's not the standard for ministerial conduct in this country. You don't have to prove that someone has committed a criminal offence to show that they are unfit to hold Cabinet office.
I think that the use of a forged document to attack a political opponent is ample reason for Angus Taylor to be dismissed from office and the fact of it being investigated is certainly ample reason for him to be stood aside while that investigation continues.
So, there's many other things that the Parliament can do. We will be looking at what's available to us. At the very least, Angus Taylor needs to come into the Parliament and explain all of the unanswered questions - the questions that his partial statement do not answer, the question that his apology to Clover Moore - appropriate, though, that might be - does not answer.
KARVELAS: Just finally, debate has started in the Senate on the Government's Ensuring Integrity legislation. It is unclear whether the Government will accept all of Pauline Hanson's amendments or how Senator Lambie will vote. How confident are you that this won't pass?
DREYFUS: We won't know until the crossbench Senators vote. What we are clear about is that Labor is opposed to this bill as a whole, which is an attempt to impose standards on the union movement in this country that this Government thinks don't need to be imposed on anybody else in this country, in particular don't need to be imposed on corporate Australia. They are applying to the unions an extraordinary standard they certainly wouldn't dream of applying, for example, to the banks of this country.
KARVELAS: Thank you very much for coming in.
DREYFUS: Thank you very much, Patricia.
ENDS
