Subjects: Plebiscite, Member for Swan Steve Irons, MPs’ entitlements.
EO&E…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
FRAN KELLY:
Talks between the Government and the Opposition broke up yesterday with no common ground reached on the issue and perhaps, apparently, with nothing much said at all it would seem. The Shadow Attorney General Mark Dreyfus says the Government made sure the proposed plebiscite on same sex marriage was doomed from the start.
KELLY:
That’s the Shadow Attorney General Mark Dreyfus speaking after that meeting yesterday. And after that meeting, Coalition backbencher George Christiansen, who Mark Dreyfus was mentioning there, tweeted his thanks to Labor for quote ‘scuttling’ a national vote on same sex marriage.
Special Minister of State Scott Ryan was at the talks. Minister, welcome to Breakfast.
SCOTT RYAN:
Good morning Fran, thanks for having me.
KELLY:
The Government called these talks, but you went in empty-handed. Where were your concessions?
RYAN:
Well Fran, before you make concessions you’ve got to actually have a request. Over the last couple of weeks since we introduced the plebiscite bill, we made announcements about its detail, I’ve had a number of meetings with stakeholders providing me with an opportunity to ask questions about the technical nature of the plebiscite, or how the plebiscite will run – that was one reason for the meeting that George Brandis called. And the other one was to allow Labor to put forward, if they had any, their proposals for amendment or suggestions, the conditions that would make it easy for them to support the plebiscite. We put our proposal out there and it really is up to Labor to say ‘we would like this to change in order for us to support it’. Yesterday they just refused to actually indicate in any what their problems were or what changes they would like.
KELLY:
Well I don’t know, maybe you weren’t listening to Radio National Breakfast yesterday, but Mark Dreyfus talked about the problems with public funding to both sides, the Yes and the No campaign and also this notion of a self-executing plebiscite. It’s well on the record that these are concerns, two major concerns that Labor has.
RYAN:
Well Fran I have to admit, I was on the plane to Brisbane yesterday. I missed it, but I regularly tune in. The problem though is, when we have the discussions, it was actually made clear by Mr Dreyfus and Ms Butler that we shouldn’t interpret anything they say as conditions to support or terms for support. They made that very clear. And so on a number of occasions we said ‘well, what are your priorities for change? What would you like to negotiate about?’ And they simply had at no point offered a constructive suggestion or any substantial suggestion at all.
KELLY:
So there was no discussion about funding for the Yes and No case, that didn’t come up at all by, from any of you?
RYAN:
Not in terms of support for the plebiscite or a condition or a proposed amendment, not at all. We, on a number of occasions, we made clear, please, our proposal is out there. A great deal of detail is out there. If you would like to change that, if you’d like to propose a change to that, we can’t guarantee we’ll agree, but we will go through in good faith our Government processes. There was not a single suggestion for change or amendment.
KELLY:
So ok. So, Labor said whatever we say here, don’t take it as any kind of support for the plebiscite, we probably won’t go there anyway. And I guess the Government was saying well give us your ideas but we can’t make any guarantee that they’ll make any difference anyway.
RYAN:
We’re trying to negotiate in good faith and that’s one of the reasons I didn’t go on air before the meeting yesterday –
KELLY:
(interrupts) How is it negotiating in good faith, just with respect, when we’ve got the morning of the meeting – yes, you didn’t go on air – but the Deputy Prime Minister for instance, Barnaby Joyce, was out in the press saying the enabling legislation would be put unchanged to the Senate. He said you don’t put it up and then start talking about what we want to change. And he particularly ruled out any thought of getting rid of the public funding.
RYAN:
We did speak to the Deputy Prime Minister, George and I, and he made it very clear that if you look at the quote that was in the Courier Mail article it didn’t quite reflect some of the commentary around it or the headline. He was defending the Cabinet position that had been put out and he also made it clear that if the – as the Prime Minister said – if the Labor Party wants to come forward with conditions or a proposal for them to support the plebiscite, we will take that through all the Government processes and consider it in good faith. George and I are, of course, not in a position to agree to anything unilaterally in the meeting yesterday, but at the same time, no proposal was offered by the Labor Party. And we’re saying to them again, if you’d like to put forward a proposal we will consider it in good faith.
KELLY:
I have to say Minister, looking from this distance, looking on, it looks like both sides went to that meeting because you thought you have to be seen to be willing to negotiate, but both sides were basically hoping that no-one offered a compromise because you didn’t want to give any and Labor doesn’t want to have a plebiscite, so it doesn’t want you to give any.
RYAN:
The meeting was about the government’s proposal for a plebiscite. And I –
KELLY:
(interrupts) Yes but you didn’t bring anything beyond –
RYAN:
(interrupts) But Fran, I can’t see into Labor’s mind and say ‘what would you like us to change to get your support?’ Really, our proposal is out there in great detail –
KELLY:
(interrupts) Are you really saying that if Labor said ‘ok, we will support the plebiscite if there is no public funding and if it’s self-executing’, that you have a hope in hell of getting it through Cabinet?
RYAN:
Well Fran, what we have said is that if there is a proposal put forward, we will take that through our Government processes. I’m not going to speculate publically and have a public negotiation, but we have a proposal out there, it is developed after consultation, it is out there in great detail and it is now up to the Labor Party to say if they are interested in the plebiscite, if they are going to reflect what Bill Shorten said only a few years ago, that they should say well we’ll do it on this basis, and they didn’t say that.
KELLY:
It does seem, as some have described it, as a great political failure when we have the leaders of the major parties for the first time ever agreeing, having the same position on same sex marriage, but our politicians unable to find a way through, it looks as though, to get any action on this.
RYAN:
Well Fran, to be fair, you know this has been an issue that has been quite prominent, particularly in the last 12 months and particularly since the Coalition adopted this commitment to have a national plebiscite. It was prominent in the last election campaign –
KELLY:
(interrupts) Yes, but a lot of people didn’t agree with the plebiscite and haven’t all the way through.
RYAN:
The Government was re-elected on the basis of an explicit promise taken to the people to hold a plebiscite on this. We said we’d hold it as soon as practicable. The [electoral] commissioner he really didn’t want – didn’t think it should be held this year. We proposed the first date next year, we put out detailed legislation that ensures that virtually not a single contingency about the conduct of the plebiscite has been put to me that is not covered in that draft bill.
KELLY:
Ok, ok. There’s a lot of questions that we’ve all been around before on this and I’m sure we will again, but can I just move to another issue because you are the Special Minister of State. Have you asked for a please explain from your colleague Steve Irons over his use and possible abuse of parliamentary entitlements where it’s now been revealed he actually charged taxpayers for flying to from Perth to Melbourne when he got married in 2011?
RYAN:
Well look, Steve addressed those immediate queries and reports yesterday –
KELLY:
(interrupts) Was that good enough in your view? The fact that he’s just paid it back?
RYAN:
I understand it was paid back a substantial period of time ago, because it does relate to an event several years ago and the matter has been dealt with.
KELLY:
And you’re happy with that? That’s it? Even though it’s since emerged that his wife, he used his entitlements to pay for his wife’s airfare back to Perth after the ceremony? $912 dollars, too?
RYAN:
It’s important that, as the Minister I don’t think I should comment particularly or investigate any particular MPs conduct. What I will say though is that I understand that these matters were dealt with several years ago both publically and in terms of an audit conducted by Mr Irons when he repaid certain entitlements.
KELLY:
Is it time, just as Special Minister of State, just finally for you to give a reminder to all your colleagues of the rules around entitlements?
RYAN:
Well this relates to events several years ago and I am sure all my colleagues are very careful with the way they spend public money.
KELLY:
Scott Ryan, thank you very much for joining us.
RYAN:
Thanks Fran.
KELLY:
Scott Ryan is the Special Minister of State.
(ENDS)