TRANSCRIPT - INTERVIEW WITH LAURA JAYES – SKY NEWS

PAUL FLETCHER MP

Shadow Minister for Science and the Arts

Shadow Minister for Government Services and the Digital Economy

Manager of Opposition Business in the House

TRANSCRIPT

INTERVIEW WITH LAURA JAYES – SKY NEWS

28 NOVEMBER 2022

E&OE

Subject/s: Labor’s Extended Sittings, Industrial Relations, Former Justice Bell’s Report, Possible Censure Motion Against the Member for Cook

LAURA JAYES: Scott Morrison will likely face a censure motion in Parliament as Federal Cabinet prepares to discuss the former Prime Minister's secret decision to appoint himself to multiple ministries during the pandemic. Now this comes after an inquiry found that his conduct was, “corrosive of trust in government”. Mr Morrison has defended his actions, maintaining that he won't step down from Parliament. Joining me now is the Shadow Government Services Minister, Paul Fletcher. Thanks so much for your time. So if there is a censure motion, would you vote for it?

PAUL FLETCHER: No, Laura the Opposition will be voting against a censure motion. Let's be clear, this is a political stunt by the Albanese Labor Government. If they do decide to proceed with the censure motion, bear in mind it's very, very unusual to bring a censure motion against a backbencher as Scott Morrison now is. The proper purpose of a censure motion under the Standing Orders is to bring a minister to account to the Parliament. It's not to be used as some kind of political payback exercise. Look, let's be clear, the Solicitor General's report or advice which came out a couple of months ago, found that there was no unconstitutionality, no illegality. Former Chief, former High Court Justice Virginia Bell was asked to produce a report that found similar things. It didn't  find a breach of the Constitution or illegality, not withstanding some of the hyperventilating comment from Labor ministers. But there's a couple of sensible recommendations in there.

JAYES: But wouldn’t you agree, Mr Fletcher that it wasn't complimentary of Mr Morrison. It did say that it was corrosive of government. It's pretty scathing.

FLETCHER: What the Opposition agrees is that there's a couple of sensible recommendations from former Justice Bell. Nothing earth shattering, but recommending that there be legislation to require the publication in the Government Gazette or similar when a minister is appointed. That's perfectly sensible. We will look at the legislation when it comes forward, but I imagine we've said pretty clearly we would likely to support that. But at the end of the day, a censure motion here is purely about political payback. If there's some sensible changes here, we'll support them. But frankly, I think the Australian people would expect that the Albanese Labor government would be using Parliamentary time to deal with the issues that are facing Australians. A sharp rise in energy prices, rising interest rates. These are the issues that the Government has been elected to deal with, not engaging in some kind of political payback as well.

JAYES: The censure motions are there in our parliamentary system for a reason. If it's not used for Scott Morrison in the sense, what would they be used for? And if you don't, doesn't that look like if you don't vote for this, that you're essentially condoning or at least failing to rebuke his actions?

FLETCHER: Well Laura, I completely disagree with your analysis, which shows a misunderstanding of the role of censure motions, censure motions are typically used to deal with the accountability of a minister to the Parliament. There is no need for a censure motion here. It would purely be an exercise in political payback. Unfortunately, we've seen that this government is very keen on political payback. It's part of its cultural way of operating. Look, the fact is that there are some sensible recommendation in the review. The report from Justice, former Justice Bell. The opposition's made that clear. We'll be minded to support them once we see the legislation. But this would be an exercise in political payback, which seems to be one of the guiding themes of this Labor Government.

JAYES: Okay. But there have been no consequences for Scott Morrison. He still sits in Parliament. He still sits on the backbench. What you will call people agree seem to agree that he's done the wrong thing. We have Josh Frydenberg saying it was gross overreach. So what have been the consequences of his actions? It doesn't seem to have been any.

FLETCHER: The issue of the relationship between the then Prime Minister and his then ministers, that's a matter for the Prime Minister and each of those ministers I've certainly said if I'd been a minister who'd been on the receiving end of this, I would not have been happy. But that's a very separate question from your calling for consequences.

JAYES: I am not asking for consequences, I am just asking if you think there should be.

FLETCHER: The point I make is that Scott Morrison as Prime Minister made decisions day after day, many decisions  under some of the most challenging circumstances our nation has ever seen. Did he get every decision right? Of course he didn’t. He's human. But this so-called call for consequences is nothing but a political payback exercise driven by a Labor Party which is engaged in vindictive political conduct. What we ought to be saying is we've got some sensible recommendations. Let's deal with those. The government should bring forward the legislation if they've got it ready. We're very happy to debate it. But that's the way to handle this. And for the government to be focusing on the issues of concern to the Australian people, such as rising interest rates and dramatically rising energy prices, electricity up 56% over two years. Gas up 44% over two years.

JAYES: So, you're going to vote for the IR Bill. Do you like any of it?

FLETCHER: No, we don't. We've made it clear this industrial relations bill is extreme. It gets rid of the Australian Building Construction Commission, which has done such important work. It gets rid of the Register Organisations Commission, which has done important work. It invites the unions into small businesses all around the country. The so-called changes that have been trumpeted over the weekend are minor window dressing. The fact is that small businesses and businesses of all sizes face being dragged into multi-employer bargaining under which agreements will be struck that are not specific to the circumstances of individual businesses. Extra time, extra cost, particularly for small businesses. The government itself has estimated that the cost for small and medium business could be between $14,000 and the $70,000 mark. That is time and money. That small business owners will have to take away from doing what they do best, which is serving their customers and employing Australians. There's a real risk indeed that this could give small businesses a disincentive rather than an incentive to employ. We keep hearing these claims from the Minister that this is going to get way wages moving. I think the Reserve Bank Governor has belled the cat on that last week and this week of course, for his trouble, for giving frank and fearless advice, he was dismissed as speaking rubbish by Bill Shorten. That's a very disrespectful way to deal with the Reserve Bank Governor, but the fact is what our leading economic adviser is warning this Government is there is a real risk of a wage price spiral and that would it makes the situation worse for workers and for all Australians.

JAYES: So, is it no longer the Liberal Party policy that you want to see wages rise? Because we can't handle them right now?

FLETCHER: We want to see wages rise. We've been very clear that we want to see wages rise. But the claims that are being made by this government about how this bill is going to work are without foundation.

JAYES: Okay, good news, at least you probably don't have to be in Parliament on Saturday, end on a bright note?

FLETCHER: Well, let's wait and see. Let's wait and see. This is so chaotic the way the government is handling this at the end of the year, so let's wait and see. It would be a very curious use of public resources to bring back the parliament on a Saturday to allow this government to dance to the tune of its union paymasters and ram through a bill which is about the payback for the tens of millions of dollars of political donations Labor has received from the unions. And there's also a real question as to whether they've chosen this curious timing so that they can all get to a Labor fundraiser in Sydney on Friday night. I don't know the answer to that, but it’s certainly a question that needs to be asked.

JAYES: Do you think that truncating it now? Because they want to get to a fundraiser.

FLETCHER: The question is what is the basis for the government's decision to recall Parliament, the House of Representatives on a Saturday? We've seen no adequate explanation of it. Certainly, hasn't been provided to me in my role as Manager of Opposition Business. So, it's simply falls to intelligent observers to draw some inferences as to what might be the government's rationale for doing this.

JAYES: Okay we will see. Paul Fletcher can't wait to Question Time. Thanks so much. 

FLETCHER: Thanks Laura.

Further information: Jack Abadee 0403 440 099