TRANSCRIPT: TV INTERVIEW - ABC 24 - MARCH 25, 2021

E&OE TRANSCRIPT
TELEVISION INTERVIEW
ABC AFTERNOON BRIEFING
THURSDAY, 25 MARCH 2021

SUBJECTS: Arts announcement; Brittany Higgins; sexual misconduct claims; deaths in custody.

PATRICIA KARVELAS, HOST: Tony Burke, welcome.

TONY BURKE, SHADOW MINISTER FOR INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS: Hello PK.

KARVELAS: Do you welcome the additional $135 million in funding for the music industry that has been announced today?

BURKE: I don't welcome the announcement, I welcome when it gets spent. So I'm glad the government is saying they will do more, but I've got to say the announcement they made last year, they announced $250 million but they have only spent $65 million of it by now. And one of the criticisms I have made of this government the whole way through is they keep wanting to be judged by their announcements rather than their delivery. The announcement doesn't save jobs. It’s the delivery that can save jobs. And with JobKeeper ending this weekend there are a really large number of people in the arts and entertainment sector, a whole lot of workers, who are looking at going from having a job to being unemployed over the coming days.

KARVELAS: What specific measures beyond an extended wage subsidy would you like to see for individual artists and small venues?

BURKE: As I say the wage subsidy is the easiest way to do it, but to do it properly for arts and entertainment you would have to change some of the rules, because a whole lot of the people who work gig to gig were never eligible. So there is a way of fixing it but that would have been the best thing to do. The money they have given to Support Act is smart. They are an important organisation for the sector. But one of the other things is, well I’ll just point to two others. I am really worried about venues. If we lose a number of venues over the next 12 months, then even when social distancing rules are relaxed and people can perform and turn up to events again the venues won't be there to do it. And at the moment there is no plan for venues. And we could end up in a situation where instead of seeing a recovery throughout the course of this year and next year, we are waiting six or seven years. We have already lost one of our really significant venues in Sydney, if that's happening around the country as a result of this JobKeeper decision, that’s going to hurt the sector for a long time to come. The other thing is, for a whole lot of the festivals, where it is a significant financial risk in outlay, the government should look at doing for them what they have done for the film industry, which is effectively acting as a sort of insurance fund that is a guarantee for them against the risk, not the normal commercial risk, but the risk associated with the pandemic. A whole lot of the big festivals used to have insurance against it, they can't get that now. They're only going to be in a situation where they can confidently make their outlays if they know there is some sort of assistance happening. The government has already done it for the film industry. If they do that for major festivals it will make a huge difference.

KARVELAS: Do states and territories need to start lifting restrictions on the new capacities to make it easier for artists to tour?

BURKE: Doing that would make it easier but they obviously have to be guided by the health advice. So we want the health advice to be something that allows all of that. But that has got to be measured very clearly against what advice they receive from the Chief Medical Officers.

KARVELAS: Would Labor back a permit system to allow artists to travel even if state borders are closed?

BURKE: If the health regulations allow it. It's a health rule. If the health officers are willing to come up with a system that they think will guard against that, then of course we would welcome it. We want the economic recovery, we want the industry to be able to get up and running, you don't compromise health standards to get there. But if what you described, there is a way of doing it with good, sound health advice, that would be fantastic.

KARVELAS: I just want to talk to the issues that have been dominating in the last, well, month, but certainly the last couple of days. Should the results of Brittany Higgins's formal complaint that the Prime Minister's office were backgrounding against her and her partner be made public?

BURKE: Yeah, they should. They should. Because it doesn't go to the privacy issues of Brittany Higgins, it goes to the behaviour of the Prime Minister's office. Can I tell you, I understand why people are fed up on this one. You know, if you are Brittany Higgins saying that this had happened and the Prime Minister's office had behaved this way did not cause the prime minister to act. Catherine King asked the prime minister about this in the last fortnight, in Question Time, on the floor of Parliament, 14 times and that wasn't enough for him to act. Today he says he received a call from a journalist and that was suddenly enough. So the moment he thinks it might have an impact on how he is portrayed in the media he is willing to act. Questions in the parliament he was willing to ignore. And Brittany Higgins herself, in delivering a far more compelling speech outside this building than I have ever heard inside it, that wasn't enough to compel him to action. I'm glad he is now going to act on it, but for heaven's sake, did it really have to be a call from a journalist before he would act when everything else wasn't enough?

KARVELAS: Do you believe the Prime Minister is genuine in his desire to get to get to the bottom of this?

BURKE: No. I hope he gets to the bottom of it anyway. But how can it not be enough to have Brittany Higgins say what she said, that while the Prime Minister was publicly apologising to her his office was backgrounding against her loved ones, how can hearing that not be enough for the Prime Minister of Australia to check with his own office? The Prime Minister is meant to be in charge of a couple of hundred thousand public servants and the entire machinery of Australian government. This was just asking for him to check with the people who work in the same office as him. And that's being stated publicly by Brittany Higgins wasn't enough. I've got to say ... There is so much that has caused frustration over the last fortnight. But to see that that wasn't enough, being asked on the floor of Parliament wasn't enough, but one call from a journalist springs him into action, I think it's disgraceful.

KARVELAS: Should staff found to have backgrounded against Brittany Higgins or her loved ones, if indeed it is found, be sacked?

BURKE: No one who did that would work for me, and I expect that is the same for every other Labor member. If the Prime Minister's office has behaved that way, we will see very quickly ... We have already have seen the standards of the Prime Minister, that he didn't think this was worth checking about. I think we have already seen ridiculously low standards. If he tries to do a late save and, you know, punts a staff member as a result, then that will do something about what the staff member did, but we already know the character of the Prime Minister by the way he has tried to ignore this for the last fortnight. If we hadn't been asking about this every day, and had one day where it dominated Question Time completely, I suspect he might have got off scot-free and just thought the media cycle would go on. And this is what Brittany Higgins said in that speech, where she said she felt instead of being dealt with as a person she was being dealt with as a problem to be managed. She said that and then the Prime Minister did exactly that about one of the points she made in her speech.

KARVELAS: What did you make of Sky News' Peta Credlin's accusations that male Liberal and Labor staffers held sex parties in Parliament House?

BURKE: I found it bizarre. It reminds me, and I know the language of the Canberra culture often gets thrown around. There is not a single culture in this place. There are probably 50 or more and some of them, with some of the reports that have come out, have left most people who work here stunned. And so ... I’m not sure what more I can see than that.

KARVELAS: Is she conflating consensual sexual activity with sexual assault and rape?

BURKE: I think there have been a few stories that have come out, not just Peta Credlin, I have not seen the full text of everything Peta Credlin said, I have seen some excerpts that were reported. But I think some people have tried to conflate different issues. One of the things that I found really astonishing this week was that some people had a stronger emotional reaction of outrage to those allegations than they had when Brittany Higgins' rape was first reported. You look at the strength of different statements that were made and the equivalence as to how some people handle these issues is something I can't get my head around at all. But the thing that I do think matters most with those allegations is, regardless of people's right in their own lives to their own private life – we are talking about events that allegedly have happened at this workplace. And I don't think there is any way you can argue that is appropriate in a workplace.

KARVELAS: Will Labor push for an inquiry into the issues raised by the Channel Ten report, including that sex workers were procured for MPs?

BURKE: At the moment we have been seeking inquiries through Question Time. The Government has been stonewalling. Effectively there is now an avenue for the Prime Minister, because he has been claiming they were hoping to talk to the whistle blower. They now have the former chief of staff to the previous prime minister, going back to Tony Abbott's day, with Peta Credlin. They have somebody they can pick up the phone to and say "so you say you know who it is, who is it?" And they can follow it up quickly. It doesn't need a major inquiry. Somebody has said I know who it is, it is one phone call from someone who historically the Prime Minister has worked really closely with. He picks up the phone, he finds out the answer and an investigation can start. None of this is difficult. None of this requires some grand inquiry. And if people have behaved inappropriately at Parliament House, there is a way of dealing with it.
KARVELAS: Just on the reshuffle speculation which is clearly going to be announced, an announcement on who does what pretty soon. But if the Attorney-General Christian Porter, is moved out of the Attorney-General portfolio does that settle the issues around him?

BURKE: No. No, the way to settle the issues was always really simple in terms of one of the things that can simply be done was to have an inquiry as to whether or not he was a fit and proper person. And you do that at arm's length. How long it would take, it might not take that long. And wherever that lands it lands.
KARVELAS: So if he is shifted into another portfolio where he is not, of course, in charge of, he is not the nation's chief legal lawmaker, as he is as Attorney-General, does that make it a bit better given the conflict in a particular role?

BURKE: There are two separate issues. One issue is conflict of interest and one issue is fit and proper person. The reshuffle may deal with some conflict of interest issues, although as a member of cabinet you deal with every issue. That is how cabinet works. But the fit and proper person issue, you can't reshuffle your way around that. Someone is either a fit and proper to be a member of cabinet or not. I don't see why the standard that is applied in the world of business, that’s applied throughout the sporting world all the time, has never been a threat to the rule of law to check whether or not someone is fit and proper in any of those areas. But apparently it is the end of civilisation if we apply those same standards to members of the Cabinet of Australia.
KARVELAS: I spoke to Kim Rubenstein on this show about the issues around cabinet process and she raised questions about Christian Porter being in the cabinet because the cabinet makes collective decisions. Is this something Labor is seeking legal advice on in relation to conflicts of interest, even if the Attorney General doesn't have the Attorney General responsibilities?

BURKE: I don’t know about legal advice but I can certainly tell you as a former member of cabinet that is how cabinet works. You do make collective decisions. There’s no issue that you can easily avoid associating with when you’re a member of cabinet.
KARVELAS: So do you think that compromises the cabinet and the government’s decision-making if he remains a cabinet minister?

BURKE: I think the way to resolve it is to have a separate inquiry into whether he’s a fit and proper person.

KARVELAS: Answering the question, if he remains there, in another role, do you think it compromises cabinet's decisions?

BURKE: I think it is a problem. It isn't their only problem. There was a question today that went through the litany of examples of other various scandals that are there for different members of Parliament. I think people are gobsmacked by the prospect that Stuart Robert, who had to leave because of actions he took as a minister overseas in China, that he would be the appropriate person to put in charge of Home Affairs. And be the lead person on our national security. The concept that Michaelia Cash, who refused to provide a formal statement to police when she was under investigation would now be the chief law officer of the Commonwealth. There’s a lot of problems with the cabinet and the reshuffle that is being spoken about at the moment.

KARVELAS: Finally, legal advocates say they are devastated and furious, according to a Guardian story, at the news there has now been a fourth Aboriginal death in custody in three weeks. A call for urgent action from state and federal governments. What is your reaction to this? How do you think this story, these deaths in custody should be treated?

BURKE: We had a worldwide movement following the death of George Floyd and people watched because it was filmed someone dying in custody, and then people talked about the statistics across America. The statistics across Australia here are horrific. They have been for a long time. It doesn't mean from that you can take out every individual circumstance and say, well, that applies in a particular way but it does mean this: the number of deaths in custody of First Nations people in Australia is completely unacceptable. We had a royal commission that has never been fully implemented, with Patrick Dodson involved all those years ago. It needs to be implemented and this needs to be fixed. It remains a national shame and we need to act.

KARVELAS: Tony Burke, thanks your time.

ENDS