Topics: Kevin Rudd, Royal Commission into Northern Territory juvenile detention, political party donations, same-sex marriage plebiscite

 

E&OE …….

 

PATRICIA KARVELAS:

So the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, has made it clear that Australia will not be putting Kevin Rudd forward for the role of UN Secretary General. It has divided lots of people. I’d love to get your messages whether you think it’s a good call or not such a good call. Senator Scott Ryan is the newly appointed Special Minister of State, welcome to RN Drive.

 

SCOTT RYAN:

Good evening Patricia, thanks for having me.

 

KARVELAS:

Not a problem. Scott, the Prime Minister stressed this was not a partisan issue; it’s about Kevin Rudd’s suitability for the role. Why is he unsuitable?

 

RYAN:

When the Prime Minister made that announcement today, he made it clear he didn’t want to exaggerate Kevin Rudd’s disappointment by going into specific reasons, but it was a product of a fully fleshed discussion at the Cabinet level, as the Prime Minister promised.

 

KARVELAS:

Ok. So you’re saying you won’t give the reasons? Because I think people deserve to hear the reasons because it is a controversial decision.

 

RYAN:

No look, I think the Prime Minister was very honest about it. He said, when this issue arose, that it would be taken to Cabinet and there would be a fully fleshed consideration of the issue at Cabinet and then he thought about it and came out and made his announcement today. But again, it also shows an appreciative discretion of the fact that it was obviously difficult for Mr Rudd to hear that and he didn’t think that there would be really much point in making it worse.

 

KARVELAS: Here is what the Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull had to say earlier today.

 

 

Kevin Rudd is a former foreign minister, a former prime minister, in fact, twice, a Mandarin speaker, he has got a high profile, he has worked on the world stage as, obviously, a diplomat as well. He has a lot of experience in international diplomacy, in fact he has a high regard internationally, how is he not qualified?

 

RYAN:

I think the words the Prime Minister used were “most suited”. And I think the important thing here is that it is not like the Olympics. We don’t just cheer for someone because they’re Australian. There was a long and thoughtful discussion about this, about the suitability to the role. I’m not suited to every role. I’m not in the same league as Kevin Rudd, I accept that, I’m not a former prime minister. I’m not suited to every role in government, it is not necessarily a judgement on someone’s work as a person, but the Prime Minister and the Government made a decision that he wasn’t the most suited to this role. I don’t think it’s worth increasing his disappointment by going into a great deal of detail about that, despite the partisan pot shots that the Labor Party has taken.

 

KARVELAS:

Perhaps it is not just his disappointment? Perhaps lots of Australians are disappointed too? You say it is not the Olympics, but this is an opportunity, I think Kevin Rudd said in his statement that he has released, that this is a 70-year opportunity for an Australian to be nominated. That there is – as the former prime minister I’m going to use his language – there is a “team Australia” – you’d think that we’d back our own people? This seems rather divisive internationally as well.

 

RYAN:

I wouldn’t think so. They’re not words I’ve ever used – “team Australia” – but you’ve had Anthony Albanese and Tanya Plibersek trying to create a partisan issue out of this. Whereas there is a long record in bipartisanship in appointments where there are people particularly suitable to roles. For example, when Bob Hawke supported Malcolm Fraser for head of the Commonwealth, that was partly because of Malcolm Fraser’s personal long-standing campaign against Apartheid, which he shared with Bob Hawke, which was lauded by the then-Coalition opposition, and his term was extended by the Coalition government. That element of our foreign policy in these sorts of arrangements remains, but I don’t think it would surprise anyone to say that there were reservations about Mr Rudd in this particular role and those reservations, while the Prime Minister didn’t go into any detail publically. Privately, quite a few Labor Party people said the same thing.

 

KARVELAS:

But publically they’re not saying it.

 

RYAN:

That’s true.

 

KARVELAS:

This follows a federal Cabinet being unable to achieve consensus on whether to back him or not. In fact, we know there were some people who you’d think would be pretty big thinkers, Julie Bishop as the Foreign Minister, she argued, I know that he should be nominated. George Brandis, the Attorney General, also spoke in favour of his nomination so given those people did think he was capable, it seems rather odd, doesn’t it that the Prime Minister was given the option to make the pick himself? Why isn’t Cabinet capable of making these decisions?

 

RYAN:

Without confirming any of the reports of what happens in the Cabinet, and you wouldn’t expect me to Patricia, the fact that you might say ‘Cabinet can’t reach a consensus’, I might say ‘well that’s people expressing different views’. Now the way any cabinet, any party room works, at least on our side of politics, is that it is always a matter for the person in the chair, the prime minister or the leader, to effectively make the determination after hearing from his or her colleagues. Reading the room, so to speak. There are not, in our party room for example, formal votes on issues, the leader is granted the authority to determine a position after hearing from interested colleagues. I regard what, some people say, is division, or lack of consensus, as actually a full and frank conversation, and a conversation that has been thoughtfully fleshed out.

 

KARVELAS:

I want to move on, but just one final question: Kevin Rudd also says in his statement that he travelled to meet the Prime Minister and then the Prime Minister basically snubbed him and wouldn’t meet him in person, he got a phone call instead. That’s just bad manners isn’t it?

RYAN:

Let’s be fair here. The prime minister’s diary is not always their own. It is not always one that can be easily moved around, it doesn’t matter who the prime minister is. The demands upon the diary are quite extraordinary.

 

I think Malcolm Turnbull showed due respect by saying yesterday that he was not going to make public comment until he’d had an opportunity to speak. Just because that wasn’t face-to-face, that doesn’t mean it is any form of a snub. I think it is just a sign that he did take the time out to speak to him before he said anything publically.

 

KARVELAS:

On the line I have Senator Scott Ryan, he is the Special Minister of State and he is joining us to talk about a range of topics.

 

I can see many of you are already energised by this Kevin Rudd decision. I will get to your texts so you can be part of this conversation very soon.

 

Just turning to some other topics: the Royal Commission. A number of Indigenous groups have spoken out against the involvement of the NT Government in this Royal Commission and the appointment of Brian Martin, a former Territory chief justice, to head the Royal Commission. What’s your take on this criticism and why wasn’t it listened to in the process?

 

RYAN:

My first take on it is that it doesn’t matter who, there will always be critics of any decision of government. It doesn’t matter in what field of policy. You have to be willing to where that when you make decisions.

 

I think it is important that we reflect on what happened on Monday night. There was some appalling footage that people saw on Four Corner. The Prime Minister called the Minister, who as we know, wasn’t watching it, and said ‘watch it, and call me back’.

 

KARVELAS:

It didn’t pique his interest.

 

RYAN:

And then he spoke to the Attorney General and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory and within 10 hours announced the Royal Commission and within 48 hours of that, Cabinet considered the terms of reference, within 60 hours of the show, yesterday afternoon. That was both a rapid, and a suitably rapid response, to the appalling footage people saw.

 

There was consultation with two senior figures in the Indigenous community, in Mick Gooda and Warren Mundine, who both hold positions of significance, and not just self-appointed, they hold positions of significance and one of the features of those positions is to be a consultative figure for the Government. I think we had to balance the need to act quickly, with the need to ensure there was a targeted and focussed Royal Commission to address these matters quickly and, at the same time, undertake consultation. I think that balance was struck.

 

KARVELAS:

Just quickly, because these are very much your portfolio issues, I would like to turn to the issue of political donations. On RN Breakfast, this morning, it was highlighted in a report that donations flow between state and federal parties. Isn’t it time for more transparency, real time disclosure, about who is donating? How it is working? Other jurisdictions manage this, why can’t we?

 

RYAN:

Let’s be clear, the report was from the Australia Institute, which is a well-known institute that has a particular political leaning. I would note, it doesn’t disclose who funds it …

 

KARVELAS:

Well, reform that too.

 

RYAN:

That’s a very big question. Is there a role for Parliament to regulate civil society? They’re out there saying everyone should disclose, I just note, they don’t disclose themselves.

 

I don’t think it is the role of the Commonwealth Parliament to regulate what happens in the state parliaments. It is a matter for state governments and state parliaments to determine the laws, with respect to state elections, and it shouldn’t be up to the Commonwealth, in my view. That would be an unreasonable interference in the activity of the states.

 

We do have transparency, I know we have some critics about its time limit, but we do have transparency. People do get to know, before they vote at a subsequent election, who was donating at a previous election.

 

KARVELAS:

Just quickly on the plebiscite, before I let you go this Friday night, we’ve got to move on, it is going to be partly your role, in terms of how it is rolled out, you’ve argued that the plebiscite on same-sex marriage can happen this year. That timeframe is pretty tight. I’ve read many reports about the kind of logistics that are needed to enable this to happen, it is close to impossible, isn’t it?

 

RYAN:

It can happen. It would be tight, I think that’s fair to say. I am meeting with the Electoral Commissioner this week to receive a briefing on some election-related issues, as well as to seek advice on the timing of the plebiscite. I haven’t wanted to do it in the past 10 days, since I’ve been appointed, because the Electoral Commission has two jobs: getting us to vote and then counting the votes. I think they should be allowed to focus on counting the votes, particularly with the election being so close, but I will be meeting with the Commissioner this week and seeking some advice, which I will be taking forward to the Prime Minister and Cabinet.

 

KARVELAS:

Thanks for your time, have a great weekend.

 

(ENDS)