Subjects: Royal Commission into NT youth justice system; Kevin Rudd; same-sex marriage plebiscite; Herbert.
EO&E…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
PETER VAN ONSELEN
We are joined now by the Special Minister of State, live out of our Melbourne studio here at Sky News, I’m talking about Senator Scott Ryan – thanks very much for your company.
SCOTT RYAN
Good morning Peter, good morning Paul.
VAN ONSELEN
Bill Shorten’s got a point doesn’t he? That it would be nice to see Indigenous co-commissioners on there to ensure that the Indigenous community feel comfortable with this Royal Commission process?
RYAN
Well Peter let’s reflect on the events of the week that you spoke about with Paul just then. After viewing the program himself, he spoke to the Minister, the relevant federal minister, who then had a chance to view it, and within 10 hours, the Prime Minister announced after consulting with the Chief Minister, the Attorney-General and the federal minister, a Royal Commission. And less than three days later the terms of that Royal Commission were announced, there was consultation with the Opposition I might say, the Attorney-General spoke to the Shadow Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus. Some suggestions were provided by the acting Leader of the Opposition, Tanya Plibersek, in writing to the Prime Minister, and the Government appreciates that particular input. But what we’ve seen here is a Prime Minister lead a rapid, and suitably rapid response to images and stories that quite frankly, I think shocked most Australians when they saw them on Monday night, or heard about their reports on Tuesday morning.
VAN ONSELEN
Senator, can I ask you, I mean I like the suggestion for what it’s worth, that Bill Shorten has, to have some Indigenous involvement. I don’t like him calling for it publically if it hadn’t already been privately canvassed by Labor, I guess through Tanya Plibersek as acting leader at the time. Do you have any insight on that? Was it privately suggested by Labor, but just rejected by the PM?
RYAN
No, I do not. But Bill Shorten also used the word ‘con-job’ yesterday and quite frankly Bill Shorten’s confected outrage on a daily basis on some issues is a bit like a grey sky in Melbourne in July, you just have to get on with the job and ignore it. I don’t think that language was appropriate yesterday. I think the Royal Commissioner who’s been appointed is very well qualified; he is familiar with the justice system in the Territory although he has not been responsible for administering it. And as Paul Kelly rightly pointed out, Royal Commissions are subject to their own motions. The Commissioner will have the power within the terms of reference to take his inquiries where he believes he needs to go in terms of gathering evidence. And I am certain, given the Royal Commissioner involved, that there will be substantial Indigenous voices being told, and stories being told and experiences being informed at this Royal Commission when hearings commence shortly.
PAUL KELLY
Can I just clarify Minister, that the Government therefore rejects Mr Shorten’s proposal that there be two Aboriginal co-commissioners, is that correct?
RYAN
Yes Paul. The Government has appointed Brian Martin, and we are keen that this Royal Commission gets underway very quickly, that’s why it’s so targeted. I can’t remember a recent example, where there had been such a rapid, and suitably rapid turnaround both in terms of the announcement of a commission, but also moving on to the appointment of a Commissioner and detailed terms of reference that you discussed earlier.
KELLY
But as you said, Bill Shorten did use the term ‘con-job’. Isn’t the reality here that Shorten, through the comments he made yesterday, has really cast doubt on the integrity and the legitimacy of this Royal Commission?
RYAN
Well look that will be for others to judge. I don’t accept that such doubt has been cast. I don’t think it could be, given the appointment of the Commissioner last week and his experience. I don’t think it’s particularly appropriate language to use, given the seriousness of the events and given the genuine spirit in which the government has acted. As George Brandis has pointed out, he did consult with Mick Gooda and he did consult with Warren Mundine. Now that doesn’t mean that every person from various Indigenous communities around the country would have their views represented, but they do hold two positions that ensure the Government can consult with them as we did.
VAN ONSELEN
It is my understand that when the Attorney-General and the Shadow Attorney-General had their meeting to discuss the terms around this Royal Commission – I’m talking about George Brandis and Mark Dreyfus – there was no raising by Mark Dreyfus of what the Opposition Leader has raised in relation to these co-commissioners. So in other words it has only been done publically by the Opposition Leader yesterday. Will the Opposition – will the Government, rather – call that out as the Opposition Leader playing politics with this Royal Commission, to do so publically, but to not have done it privately during the appropriate point during the discussions around the terms of reference etcetera?
RYAN
Well Peter I’m not privy to private conversations that either happen, the one you described or any that have happened regarding this – or any that have happened – all the private conversations that have happened regarding this since. I don’t think that the language the Opposition Leader used when he used the term ‘com-job’ was appropriate. And I don’t think it achieves what I think every Australian wants here, which is a real commitment to finding out what happened and ensuring it doesn’t happen again.
VAN ONSELEN
But on that very issue though, I mean I’m telling you that my understanding is that there has been no private discussion about this before –
RYAN
And I’m not disagreeing.
VAN ONSELEN
If you assume that that is correct, will you call out this as a political exercise by the Opposition Leader to do this publically, rather than privately when Mark Dreyfus had his opportunity with George Brandis?
RYAN
Well what I’m saying Peter is that I don’t think that that’s appropriate language, and I don’t think it reflects what most Australians want, which is understanding what happened here, putting in place measures to endure we never again see footage of young Australians being treated that way.
KELLY
Isn’t the reality here Minister, that given the Indigenous concern – I mean there’s a lot of anger among Indigenous leaders in the Northern Territory – isn’t the reality here that the position that Bill Shorten is taking, is simply inflaming opinion on this issue?
RYAN
Well again, on Indigenous affairs I think that when we instituted the Closing the Gap statement to Parliament there has been, while occasional differences, what I will refer to as an attempt to seek common ground on Indigenous affairs, really over most of my eight years in Parliament. Now that doesn’t meant that both political leaders always agree, but I do think that means that we do seek to emphasise those areas where we do agree, and emphasise those areas where we all need to work together to Close the Gap, to improve all those outcomes that we now measure – life expectancy, education and health. And that’s why I don’t think the language – using a term like ‘con-job’ – I don’t think it meets that standard. I don’t think it looks for a way where we can actually work together to ensure that Indigenous disadvantage is addressed. In the Northern Territory there is legitimate concern about what people have seen on television, and obviously as we’ve heard, some of the lived experience that young Australians and particularly young Indigenous Australians have experienced in the justice systems. You know, that’s why a Royal Commission was announced within 12 hours of this program going to air.
KELLY
Now what sort of judgement do we reach about the Northern Territory Government? This is a responsibility of the Northern Territory Government. We’re talking about child protection and youth detention on the Northern Territory. There have been earlier reports into this situation. We know this situation has been bad for a long period of time. What is the conclusion that the Federal Government reaches about the performance of the Northern Territory Government on this issue?
RYAN
Well I think that conclusion awaits the Royal Commission. The fact that we are talking about this this week… (interrupted)
KELLY
(interrupts) Surely, surely, there’s got to be an earlier judgement. I understand there’s been a Royal Commission appointed, I understand that. But the fact of the matter is that the Northern Territory Government here has been caught out very badly. There have been earlier reports into this issue and simply there was a failure to address the problem. Now surely there’s got to be a strong response at that level.
RYAN
Yes, but Paul, at the same time, I think the very fact that we’ve appointed a Royal Commission which has very tight reporting timelines, the fact that it has been done with the cooperation of the Northern Territory Government, and as the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General have said, the Chief Minister has cooperated at all stages and worked with the Commonwealth with respect to designing the terms of reference and involving the Northern Territory Government in this Royal Commission because it will be obviously the prime focus of the investigation of the Royal Commission. I don’t think it’s appropriate to rush to judgement. We need to know who knew what, when, and what action was taken or not taken before we saw the events and video footage that was put to air last Monday. I think the fact that we are rightly discussing this over the last six days, but no-one was really discussing it, including in the media beforehand, reflects the fact that this has shocked Australia, but at the same time it has brought attention to it, to a much wider audience. And that may well include people inside the Northern Territory as well.
VAN ONSELEN
If a former prime minister, a former foreign minister, a former diplomat and former person who was at the centre of responsibility for getting Australia’s first ever place on the Security Council vis a vis his role in both of those dual roles PM and foreign minister, is not qualified to just run for the position of Secretary General of the UN, who is?
RYAN
I think Peter what we saw is a fully-fleshed Cabinet discussion, well we didn’t see it, but the Prime Minister made his announcement on Friday. And prior to that, and again in that press statement, he made the point that when Australia nominates someone, it’s not just to put them in the race. We’re nominating them because we believe they’re the most suitable person for the role and in this case, that wasn’t the case… (inaudible, interrupted)
VAN ONSELEN
(interrupts) But that’s my question Senator, if I can. I mean, a lot of us are no great fans of Kevin Rudd, but former prime minister, former foreign minister are responsible for that position – well, non-permanent position on the Security Council. If he’s not qualified to just run for the position of Secretary General of the UN, who is?
RYAN
Well, as I said Peter, there’s a difference between believing that we put someone forward saying, ‘they’re qualified to run’, and we put someone forward saying, ‘they’re the most suitable person for the role’. Look I’m not going to go into re-hashing all the details that so many of his former colleagues have, and I might add that I think Prime Minister Turnbull actually treated the former prime minister with appropriate dignity and respect by actually simply saying he wasn’t going to exaggerate or worsen his level of disappointment by going into the reasons, and I think that that’s most appropriate… (inaudible, interrupted)
VAN ONSELEN
(interrupts) But in fairness though Senator, I’ve got to jump in. I mean that’s the equivalent of me saying to you I’m not sure that you’re suited to being Special Minister of State, but I’m not going to show you the indignity of going through exactly why. As soon as you say that, that’s offensive. That is an understandably offensive thing to say, (inaudible)
RYAN
I actually disagree. I don’t know if the Prime Minister – I don’t know what the contents of the Prime Minister’s private conversation with Mr Rudd were, but I think it would actually be at the risk of being much more offensive if anyone did it on camera. If someone wants to provide me with advice I’d much prefer they don’t do it on camera.
KELLY
Isn’t the problem here Minister, that it seems from the documentation that Kevin Rudd released, that Malcolm Turnbull changed his mind?
RYAN
Well I will just comment that the correspondence released is only the correspondence of Mr Rudd. It obviously reflects his recollection of events or his interpretation of events. You rightly Paul, in your opening commentary, outline that Mr Rudd has undertaken this course of action without having had the endorsement of the Australian Government over the last couple of years, and my understanding of events as you reported it, was that he was never offered nor guaranteed that support. It was always said it was going to go to Cabinet, and as the Deputy Prime Minister made clear as well, this reflects the majority view of cabinet.
KELLY
How much will this damage the relationship between Prime Minister Turnbull and Foreign Minister Bishop, given that there’s been such a sharp difference between them on this critical issue?
RYAN
One of the strengths of both Julie and Malcolm, in my experience with both of them and particularly over the last 12 months, is that they have a strong personal relationship. That friendship, as many people know, goes back to before they were in parliament, and a strong relationship is one where people can disagree, where people can actually have a good discussion coming from different perspectives where we understand the perspectives of another, we engage with it, but we don’t necessarily have to agree. But we do respond to that when we’re discussing the key issue. So I think this is actually a sign of the strength of the Government, that there can actually be full-fleshed discussion of such important issues, and then as always the final responsibility rests on the head of the Prime Minister to make the announcement.
KELLY
Now Malcolm Turnbull’s been criticised at length in the media for this decision on the grounds that it demonstrates that he’s a weak leader. That he didn’t have the strength to back Rudd, what’s your response to that?
RYAN
Well again, I’ll defer to what you said in your introduction, which is, I think, like any important decision as Prime Minister, you’ll get criticised either way. I actually think that in my time, without going into the discussion that occurred in the Cabinet room, the point we’ve got here is, is this person the most suitable person to hold the role? Not just to run for election, but to hold the role. The Prime Minister carried himself with enormous dignity, in not doing the easier thing, which is to explain all the reasons publically. I mean, the truth is, the Prime Minister has shown more dignity towards Kevin Rudd than most of his Labor colleagues have over the last three years. He went out, took questions after making the announcement, but like all big decisions in government, these aren’t easy. They have people who will criticise or support you no matter what position you take. So I think the Prime Minister here, by taking it to Cabinet, allowing a fully-fleshed discussion and then making the announcement himself, took full responsibility for it and I think that will actually see him as being doing the right thing in the eyes of the Australian people.
VAN ONSELEN
Is it your view that given that Kevin Rudd has leaked if you like, or at least released to the media, his version of events in the lead up to Malcolm Turnbull’s decision not to support him for that UN role – is it your view that someone that does that is perhaps illustrating better than anyone that they’re not suited to the role?
RYAN
Well I’ll keep my opinions on the matter to the privacy of my ministerial colleagues and let commentators make other judgements like that.
VAN ONSELEN
All right let’s move on. I want to ask you about a couple of issues in your ministerial remit if I can.
When are you meeting with the head of the AEC to try and settle on a timeline around this plebiscite on same-sex marriage, and is it your view that that plebiscite can be achieved this year? That is, of course, what George Brandis told us here on Australian Agenda, and it’s something that the Prime Minister echoed in the lead-up to the election.
RYAN
I have not pressed to meet with the Commissioner on a formal level – we have had lots of discussions since my appointment last week over my first 10 days in the job. I’ve said before the AEC has two major roles every three years, one is to get us to vote, the other is to count the votes, and with the position in Herbert and also the Senate count underway, I will be meeting with the Commissioner in the middle of this week as most of the Senate counts come to a conclusion and we have a final result for Herbert. One of the issues I’ll be discussing, as well as a more wide briefing on what happened with the election and little administrative issues that arose, is to seek the Commissioner’s advice on timing regarding a plebiscite, given the lead times that are necessary, and after hearing from the Commissioner, I’ll take that advice forward to the Prime Minister and Cabinet. But as I understand, it is still possible to hold in this calendar year.
KELLY
Minister, do you think that the bill to create the plebiscite will sail through the Parliament pretty comfortably? Or do you anticipate that there could be problems, delays, disputes or even rejection of that bill?
RYAN
Well Paul that’s really up to the Labor Party. This was a central issue to many voters in the campaign and we made it very clear that we’re going to follow through on our commitment to hold a plebiscite, and you rightly point out that does need legislation. The timing of that legislation will have a big impact on whether or not it can be held this year, along with the lead times following its passage, that the Electoral Commission needs to put in place the necessary measures for a plebiscite. So really whether or not that bill is delayed or rejected by the Parliament is not up to the Government. We will bring it forward, it really will be up to the Opposition and will Bill Shorten stand in the way of a public vote on this issue?
VAN ONSELEN
If the Opposition, slash the crossbenchers, do stand in the way of a plebiscite, what’s the lesser of evils in your opinion – a free vote? Or doing nothing on same-sex marriage for three years?
RYAN
Well Peter, I don’t want to move on to hypothetical situations until Parliament’s had the opportunity to address the legislation. I think it’s fair to say it was a central issue in the election, I mean it was the subject of substantial and some would say a disproportionate level of public commentary. I think that to block a commitment to a public vote would show the hypocrisy of those who, at the same time claim public support for a change to the marriage law, but ignore the same poll saying there’s enormous public support for a plebiscite.
VAN ONSELEN
Well not quite though, there was more polling, Senator, that indicated it actually drops to only 35 percent of people in favour of a plebiscite when they’re informed in the poll that this is not actually a binding vote. People who have been advocating for a plebiscite have worked on the assumption that it would actually carry some weight in terms of requiring MPs to vote for or against its resolve.
RYAN
Yeah, but Peter, I don’t see any scenario, and I don’t think any serious analyst has put forward a single scenario whereby the result of the plebiscite, particularly if it results in public support for change to the Marriage Act, would not be reflected. The numbers in Parliament overwhelmingly suggest that, over what would be overwhelmingly carried if the plebiscite was carried… (inaudible, interrupted)
VAN ONSELEN
(interrupts) But that’s just good luck though, isn’t it? Rather than good management? Because we’ve got MPs variously saying they won’t follow it when they’ve actually advocated for the plebiscite previously. We’ve got MPs saying that they want a state-by-state breakdown, or even an electorate-by-electorate breakdown. As Special Minister of State, are you prepared to provide an electorate-by-electorate breakdown of the way people voted, at additional cost no doubt?
RYAN
Without going in to the advice I’ll take to the Prime Minister and to Cabinet, one of the things I will say is that I think a plebiscite stands the most chance of being seen as fair by all participants and voters if, from the voter experience it actually reflects what it might be like at a referendum, ie: you turn up at your local polling place, you get your name marked off and you have a ballot paper which you mark and then put into the ballot box. I personally think that is the most appropriate way to treat the plebiscite, and then it will be like an election or referendum, albeit it has been a while since we had a referendum, nearly two decades. I think that if we do that, it will actually be seen by everyone as a fair process. Now the normal process in a referendum is that we report by polling place and they are grouped into electorates and states. We obviously have to count referenda state-by-state for the purpose of the constitutional change. I don’t see any particular issue with doing that, but, and I haven’t had anyone come to me saying that that shouldn’t be the way the vote counted. It’s not counted that way, it’s more just reported that way, because every ballot we have is reported by polling place.
KELLY
Minister, one of the early items for the Government will be the industrial relations legislation which was the subject of the double dissolution. There’s widespread commentary that these Bills have got no chance of being passed by the Parliament. Will the Government fight politically for these Bills, and take a strong stand behind them?
RYAN
Well absolutely Paul. The first piece of legislation the Prime Minister’s said we will introduce into the Parliament will be with respect to the Country Fire Authority dispute in Victoria, which also of course does involve a key workplace relations issue, albeit mainly in my home state in Victoria. Although I do note that some of colleagues interstate are worried about state Labor governments doing similar things to big volunteer organisations, like their version of the Country Fire Authority.
Now importantly when it comes to the ABCC and the Registered Organisations Bills, we do need to wait for the result of the Senate, and the advice I had last week from the Commissioner is that by Wednesday or Thursday next week we will actually have results in every state and every territory for the Senate, and that will obviously give the Government the opportunity to sit down with the new Senators to seek, to negotiate the passage of and support for this key legislation.
VAN ONSELEN
When will we know when the LNP, or if the LNP, want to take court action for the seat of Herbert?
RYAN
Okay so the timing of that is if we get a declaration for the seat of Herbert on Monday or Tuesday, which is a likely outcome at this stage, the writ would then be returned on the following Monday, which I think is the eighth of August, and then that starts the period of 40 days, whereby a candidate or someone may challenge a result in the Court of Disputed Returns. It’s marginally less than 40 days on this occasion due to some administrative arrangements, but let’s just say it’s about 40 days from next weekend.
VAN ONSELEN
With the Senate vote still being counted, and I’ll ask you about that in a moment, with the prospect or otherwise of a same-sex marriage plebiscite before the end of the year, if the court action is successful, assuming it does go ahead of course, that will be yet another election this side of Christmas. Would that potentially delay the AEC’s ability to get the same-sex marriage plebiscite done this year?
RYAN
Look I’ve avoided commenting, other than providing a timeline of the issue of the Herbert, sort of potential responses to a declaration in Herbert. I think it’s important we let the Electoral Commission finalise the count and make a formal declaration and announcement before I provide any particular public comment. The Senate count you mentioned there, in essence the formal distribution of preferences, which is when we get to know the result should happen in South Australia tomorrow, South Australia and Western Australia tomorrow, Victoria and Queensland Tuesday, and New South Wales on Wednesday. And at each of those states a formal declaration of those results is likely to happen 24 hours after that. So we should know the result of the Senate come Wednesday or Thursday this week.
VAN ONSELEN
Special Minister of State, Senator Scott Ryan, we appreciate you joining us on Sunday Agenda. Thanks for your company.
RYAN
Thanks, Peter.
(ENDS)