Topics: Same sex marriage plebiscite, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s first year in the job, Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters review in the 2016 federal election, Pauline Hanson, identity cards
E&OE …
PATRICIA KARVELAS
Welcome Senator to RN Drive.
SENATOR SCOTT RYAN
Thanks for having me Patricia.
KARVELAS
Today marks one year since Malcolm Turnbull took over as Prime Minister, you were one of those who engineered, was instrumental in that change, what has Malcolm Turnbull achieved that Tony Abbott couldn’t?
SENATOR RYAN
Well I’m not going to make a comparison like that, what I will say is the Government has had substantial achievements over the last 12 months. We’ve had 220,000 jobs created, that’s two and a half times, nearly two and a half times, the number created in Labor’s last year of office. That’s 220,000 more opportunities for Australians to have a stake in the economy and in their community.
KARVELAS
Sure, but wouldn’t that have happened under Tony Abbott?
SENATOR RYAN
Well I’ll let others judge that, that’s a record that the Prime Minister and the Government can point to. We’ve committed to a substantial naval and defence building programme over the next 10 years, and previous Labor governments had not made these commitments, which are very important from both a defence and an industry point of view. On the international stage, Malcolm Turnbull is making clear that Australia’s interest and the world’s interest are in free trade and not having the rise of protectionism, which is happening in some parts of the world and that’s defending Australia’s interest and that’s putting forward our case for what is in the best interest of Australian businesses and families.
KARVELAS
Sure, but you changed Prime Ministers, that’s a pretty significant act. If it’s all ultimately the same what’s the point of changing Prime Minister?
SENATOR RYAN
Well Patricia, you’re making that assertion. I’m pointing to the achievements that Malcolm Turnbull has had and the Government has had under his leadership. We’ve got the National Science and Innovation Agenda that provides extra capital to start-up companies, we’ve had the fact that the Prime Minister has engaged, and I think everyone brings their own particular character to the leadership and I think the Prime Minister talking about the opportunities that Australia has and also ensuring that, you know explaining that some of the challenges we face require complex thinking and complex solutions and I think everyone brings their character as John Howard did, and I think in Malcolm Turnbull we’ve got a person right for the time.
KARVELAS
Last night Peta Credlin said that Tony Abbott would have won more seats than Malcolm Turnbull in the last election, is she right?
SENATOR RYAN
Well I’ve always had a policy of not commenting on the advice of commentators or former staff and I’m not going to start tonight
KARVELAS
Ok well the question though, would Tony Abbott have won more seats ?
SENATOR RYAN
I think that without going over the events of 12 months ago, we’ve had an election since and I think the Government was re-elected and Malcolm Turnbull was a key element of that re-election.
KARVELAS
Ok but so do you think the Government would have been re-elected under a different leader?
SENATOR RYAN
Well again …
KARVELAS (interrupting)
It is important.
SENATOR RYAN
Well Patricia these events have been dissected a great deal over the last 12 months. We have had an election since and they’re not the focus of myself, considering hypotheticals or otherwise. Obviously the party, the Parliamentary party had a view last year that was partly about our prospects and we’ve had an election since and Malcolm Turnbull has been re-elected
KARVELAS
George Brandis said today that Malcolm Turnbull will be remembered alongside Robert Menzies and John Howard as Liberal greats. I’ve actually asked this question of John Howard and he said that comparison is premature, is it premature?
SENATOR RYAN
It would be foolish of me to disagree with someone with the standing of John Howard. Senate Question Time, like House Question Time you can always get into a bit of hyperbole and maybe Senator Brandis did that at the time.
I think Malcolm Turnbull has the capacity to be a great Prime Minister and I think he is showing that in the way he deals with complex issues. Whether they be the budget deficit and the achievement yesterday with significant legislation through, in this case with the cooperation of Labor to try and fix the deficit we inherited, and also today, in taking into Parliament our commitment to the legislation to underpin our commitment to a plebiscite, which we made explicit at the last election.
KARVELAS
I watched an interview with Arthur Sinodinos, who you work very closely with as Assistant Cabinet Secretary, and he says that ministers over the last year needed to have done more heavy lifting to have helped Malcolm Turnbull, that Malcolm Turnbull was effectively alone and that they needed to help more in selling and executing the message, do ministers need to do more?
SENATOR RYAN
I think that as a minister in the Government you can always look back and say where could I have done a bit better. I do that every week. How could I have contributed more? I think that is a natural response of a reflective person, I do it.
KARVELAS
So could ministers have assisted in getting his narrative or message out?
SENATOR RYAN
Well I don’t think it is appropriate for me to judge my peers Patricia.
KARVELAS
But Arthur Sinodinos did?
SENATOR RYAN
And Arthur Sinodinos was at the centre of the Howard government, he is very experienced person who I work very closely with as you said. But I’m not going to provide public commentary on my colleagues.
KARVELAS
Ok onto the plebiscite. Bill Shorten has advised the Labor caucus to vote against the plebiscite legislation. That just kills it doesn’t it?
SENATOR RYAN
Well I’ve seen politicians change their mind before. Bill Shorten not so long ago said he didn’t have a particular problem with the plebiscite. Bill Shorten, and even prominent advocates for same sex marriage in Penny Wong, were arguing the case and voting in favour of the current definition of marriage. So the Government is going to prosecute this case because I think it is a particularly dangerous course of action to say an explicit commitment that the Government made, which has been subject of substantial public debate, which we took to an election, that is about giving the people and opportunity to resolve this question, I think it is very dangerous for an opposition and an alternative prime minister to say some of the things that he has been saying, which is effectively saying, ‘I don’t trust the Australian people in the way they conduct themselves and in the result that they will make’.
KARVELAS
Can you say hand on heart that if the plebiscite enabling legislation is voted down that there will not be in this term of Parliament a revisiting of, at least in the Parliament a revisiting of this issue?
SENATOR RYAN
I don’t think there will be, but I’m not a betting man and I don’t have a crystal ball.
KARVELAS
So it could happen? Someone could try and bring it on and make it happen?
SENATOR RYAN
The Labor Party tried to bring it on, I understand, earlier in the House of Representatives. It didn’t proceed. We committed to a plebiscite and we are going to prosecute this case because I think it is important to repudiate some of the things that have been said about the Australian people. Like the Prime Minister, I am an optimist. I think Australia has dealt with complex issues before in public debate and I think the overwhelming majority of Australians conduct themselves with decency and respect. And I am actually offended at some of the things that have been said about how the Australian people will conduct themselves.
KARVELAS
One of the marriage equality lobbying groups has just put out a press release. They say they’re very concerned. It’s been reported that Government briefing notes say, they argue, that following the passage of the legislation enabling the plebiscite, an amendment to the Marriage Act will be introduced that allows for unspecified religious freedoms and conscientious objections. So effectively, the florists will be able to not provide flowers for weddings, bakers. Is that a hidden thing in this?
SENATOR RYAN
No. That’s not a briefing note that I’ve seen. The Government has always made clear, and the Coalition has always made clear, that we believe exemptions for religious and conscientious objections – effectively, churches should be free to marry who they choose – are an important part of a liberal democracy. It’s important to respect people’s conscience in that sense and I don’t think there are many in the community who would advocate that a church, or a mosque, or a synagogue that has a different religious view should be forced to contradict those religious views.
KARVELAS
No, but how about services? These are businesses.
SENATOR RYAN
That’s not my part of the legislation, to be honest. I can answer very detailed questions on the mechanics of the plebiscite, that’s in the bailiwick of Senator Brandis. I haven’t seen a briefing note that indicates that at all.
KARVELAS
Today you said you’d ask the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters to examine the question of foreign donations, fundraising and activity. Has this been prompted by the controversies surrounding Sam Dastyari?
SENATOR RYAN
There is, of course, a key distinction between Sam Dastyari and the issue of donations. Sam Dastyari’s wasn’t a political donation; it was a personal contribution to cover a debt that he had incurred himself. It wasn’t a donation, it didn’t go through a party political process in the same way that a donation to the Labor Party or the Liberal Party would.
It’s important when we look at foreign donations, and this is one of the reasons for the terms of reference that I’ve given the electoral matters committee, what is a foreign donation? There was one proposal before the Parliament, several years ago, by the Labor Party, that wouldn’t have actually banned a lot of the donations that have been in public debate in the last fortnight. Mr Wilkie has put up another one, based on the definition of a foreign person in the Takeovers Act, that has a different application. So I’ve asked the electoral matters committee to look at foreign persons, foreign entities, foreign sources and even foreign-owned subsidiaries. The truth is, no one is particularly concerned with Toyota here, or some of the other large multinational subsidiaries, and I don’t think people think that they are a particular risk to our political system.
KARVELAS
If the committee were to recommend that foreign donations be banned, would you support that? What’s your personal view?
SENATOR RYAN
I think it is definitely worth looking at. My concern is much more about money that is linked to state interests and foreign states, than it is to a company like Toyota or General Electric.
KARVELAS
Sure, but influence is influence, isn’t it? People are uncomfortable broadly with influence being executed in a way that is undemocratic.
SENATOR RYAN
No. The issue of corporate donations is one that I know some people have a strong view on. I answered a question from Senator Di Natale, the leader of the Greens, this week. The Greens have the hypocritical position that if you’re a for-profit corporation you can’t make a donation, but if you’re a union, or a not-for-profit corporation, then you can. You can’t have a system that tilts the playing field one way or another. There are also substantial High Court-related issues, following the two cases that came out of NSW’s attempts to change donations laws over the last several years. It is not as simple as people think, to simply say, ‘well we’re going to ban these people from donating’.
KARVELAS
Just before I let you go, I want to move to something pretty significant that just happened. Today we heard the maiden speech from One Nation Senator Pauline Hanson, which for anyone familiar with her infamous 1996, sounded like trip down memory lane.
[AUDIO CLIP]
Is Australia in danger of being swamped by Muslims, as Pauline Hanson suggests?
SENATOR RYAN
No.
KARVELAS
Can you elaborate on that?
SENATOR RYAN
I wasn’t there for the speech so that’s the only section that I’ve heard. I disagree.
I am a strong believer in the immigration program that was so successful also, under the Howard government – where it reached record levels in our lifetimes – that does not discriminate on the basis of colour, creed, religion or origin.
KARVELAS
She’s also made a new proposal – I hadn’t heard it before – for an Australian ID card to stop people wrongly claiming welfare. Would that be an invasion of privacy, I know you don’t know much about it, but what’s your instinct on an ID card like that?
SENATOR RYAN
My liberal instincts come out very strongly. I am strongly against it on principle. There was, of course, a proposal for an ‘Australia Card’ in 1987 that the Hawke government did not proceed with after the 1987 election. That sort of approach by the state towards citizens having to carry an ID card is not something I’m comfortable with at all.
KARVELAS
Senator Scott Ryan, thanks for joining me.
SENATOR RYAN
Thanks for having me Patricia.
[ENDS]