Topics: Australia’s involvement in Iraq and political donations.
E&OE…
Kieran Gilbert
This is AM Agenda; thanks for your company. With me now is Labor frontbencher Matt Thistlethwaite and shadow, the Parliamentary Secretary for Education I should say, Senator Scott Ryan. Senator Ryan, first to you. The Government would be encouraged by the level of support here for the contribution thus far in Iraq?
Scott Ryan
Well, the Government makes decisions on grave issues of national security on the grounds of national interest, Kieran. I’ve seen this morning’s newspaper reports, but as the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister have made clear, the events in Iraq and Syria and the involvement of Australians do pose a threat to Australia’s national security and the Government is acting accordingly.
Gilbert
Matt Thistlethwaite, your thoughts on this? I guess it doesn’t come as much of a surprise. It would be an entirely different scenario, you would imagine, if it asked about the prospect of boots on the ground.
Thistlethwaite
Yeah, I’m not surprised by this result at all, Kieran. I think it reflects the fact that Australians have seen what an awful and terrible group ISIS is, and what a threat it is. But also I think that the results reflect the fact that this is a very different mission than 2003; it’s a humanitarian mission and the RAAF have done great work in providing humanitarian relief to refugees in Mount Sinjar and places such as that. And of course, the assistance has been provided with the support of the Iraqi government; the Iraqi people has asked for Australia to get involved in this process, and that’s a key difference between this operation and 2003.
Gilbert
Let’s move on now to the discussion I had with the Shadow Attorney General. Matt Thistlethwaite, again I put a similar question to you in relation to the suggestions of cash for questions. Isn’t it hypocritical of Labor to be making those sorts of comments given the very close links Labor has with the union movement as your biggest donor and funder?
Thistlethwaite
Well Kieran, all I can say is that with respect of my position I’ve never been asked to ask a question on behalf of anyone that’s made a donation. I’ve asked questions on behalf of the Ted Noffs Foundation, on behalf of Qantas workers, on behalf of a trades person who operated a small business in my electorate and none of those people have made donations to me. But I think this whole thing, and the important point that Mark Dreyfus was making is this; that donations from developers in New South Wales are banned and for good reason given the evidence coming out of ICAC. What’s important here is that you’ve had a developer, Brickworks, donate to what essentially is a front company in the Free Enterprise Foundation which has ties to the federal Liberal Party, and that money has been channeled back into New South Wales. Now on the objective reasoning of it, that would appear to be illegal, so in that respect the Liberal Party has some questions to answer.
Gilbert
Alright. Senator Ryan; your response to that.
Ryan
Well look, Mark Dreyfus’s comments were hypocritical and cowardly. If you’ve read these emails, and there’re on the website of the Fairfax press as well as ICAC, there’s nothing to them. It is no secret that the Coalition, in opposition, waged a campaign against the carbon tax. It’s no secret that there was example after example used in parliamentary debate and in the media; companies were coming to us all the time with the impact that devastating tax was going to have on their businesses and on employment. What Mark Dreyfus should be answering is why the shareholders, and the owners and the funders of the Labor Party in the union movement get exactly what they want. Because under the Labor Government the CFMEU, one of its major donors, wanted changes to the Building and Construction Commission. Labor legislated them. The Maritime Union of Australia wanted changes to shipping laws; another donor to the Labor Party. Labor legislated them. The Transport Workers Union wanted changes to trucking laws; another major donor to the Labor Party and Labor legislated for them.
Gilbert
You’re talking about the relationship, and I made that point of course to Mark Dreyfus, but this is about your government now. Explain to us why it’s ok, the email train in the context of what we’re seeing out of ICAC, is there a link or isn’t there as argued and prosecuted by Mr Dreyfus?
Ryan
Absolutely nothing to it whatsoever, because there was example after example that we raised, when businesses came to the Liberal Party, of the damaging impact that the carbon tax was going to have on them and their future employment of their staff. This is just a muck-raking campaign by a gutless Labor Party seeking to divert attention from the truth; which is that they want to bring back the carbon tax.
Thistlethwaite
Oh look, Kieran, the question Scott needs to answer here is: did Brickworks donate to the Free Enterprise Foundation and did the Free Enterprise Foundation provide funding to the New South Wales Liberal Party? If it did, that would appear to be illegal under New South Wales electoral laws, and the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party have to answer that question to restore trust with the Australian public.
Ryan
Well, Matt, there’s an ICAC enquiry and that enquiry will proceed. What you, and what Mark Dreyfus are trying to do is to artificially conflate [that] what is going on in New South Wales, your home state, the Labor Party you were a state secretary of, with an innocent email trail that merely talks about a company highlighting the impact your damaging carbon tax was going to have on employment and its future.
Thistlethwaite
Well, I think…
Gilbert
Gentlemen, we’re out of time. My apologies, Matt Thistlethwaite but I think we’ve had a fair crack at it. We’ve got to go; Matt Thistlethwaite, Scott Ryan, appreciate your time this morning.
*Ends*