TRANSCRIPT - INTERVIEW WITH TOM CONNELL – 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 TOM CONNELL – SKY NEWS

29 NOVEMBER 2022

E&OE

 

Subject/s: The Voice to Parliament, Former Justice Bell’s Report, Possible Censure Motion Against the Member for Cook

 

TOM CONNELL: Joining me live now as Manager of Opposition Business Paul Fletcher for more on this. Thanks for your time.

PAUL FLETCHER: Good to be with you.

CONNELL: Do you agree with Alex Hawke's thoughts on this?

FLETCHER: I've seen the comments and I'm not going to be commentating further on them. Look, it's never surprising at the end of a government, you get all kinds of commentary. But I think the record of the Morrison Government and Scott Morrison as Prime Minister is a record of getting through the pandemic. Australia did better than most countries of exiting our government with unemployment 3.9% and falling. So, we've got better public health outcomes in most countries, a better economic outcomes than most countries. Significant foreign policy achievements such as AUKUS. These, I think, are the important things to weigh up in the assessment of Scott Morrison's performance when he was Prime Minister.

CONNELL: Yesterday you told my colleague Laura Jayes you wouldn't support a censure motion. How would you describe a censure motion? When should one be used in your view?

FLETCHER: Well, in fact, the House of Representatives practice is very clear on that. The purpose of the censure motion is for the Parliament to hold the executive government to account, hold a minister to account, and indeed the reference in the Standing Orders to censure, to speak specifically of censure of the government. It's very clear that it's very unusual to have a censure motion of a backbencher. It's only happened twice, in both cases with the agreement of both major parties. There's no agreement here. This is a political stunt.

CONNELL: So if this had come out when Scott Morrison was still Prime Minister, would a censure motion have been appropriate there?

FLETCHER: Well, again, I'm not going to get into hypotheticals. What I would say…

CONNELL: But we know that the reason why this is relevant, you said not with the backbencher. This is to hold the Prime Minister to account. So, what I'm trying to assess is, is what he did worthy of censure, if he were still PM because he had done it, then we just didn't know about it.

FLETCHER: Well, again, I'm not going to discuss hypotheticals. What I will say is this present government has sought to have as much focus on this as possible for pretty basic political reasons. We had a Solicitor General's advice which was publicly released. We'd had Labor government ministers going around talking about illegality. It's clear from the Solicitor General's advice, not illegal, not a breach of the Constitution, valid appointments, similar findings, in fact, from former High Court Justice Bell in her report. Now she's made some sensible recommendations that there to be legislation required that when a minister is appointed, that fact is publicised.

CONNELL: Well also described the appointment, by the way, is unnecessary, exorbitant and bizarre. Did you agree with that part of the finding?

FLETCHER: Well, I'll confine myself to findings as to the legal significance of what occurred. But what I would say is, to the extent there are some policy changes required, the sensible ones she's recommended, the Opposition would likely support those. We'll have a look at the legislation. Now, it's interesting. The government has known for weeks and weeks that this was the advice first of the Solicitor-General and Former High Court Justice Bell wrote to the Prime Minister some weeks ago saying she was proposing to recommend some changes, they could have the legislation ready to go now. That would be a much better use of the Parliament to debate it, to debate and vote on the legislation, making the changes that are recommended. They haven't done that. They've chosen to engage in what is frankly a political stunt.

CONNELL: You quoted, again, hypothetical when Scott Morrison was Prime Minister, he had gone about the secret swearings in that he didn't tell anyone about. Would it have been appropriate at that time to move a censure motion against the Prime Minister?

FLETCHER: Well, again, I'm not going to get into commenting on hypothetical circumstances that.

CONNELL: But it was it not have that happened? The only thing missing is we didn't know about it.

FLETCHER: This is like one of these sort of alternative views of history, you know.

CONNELL: But it's just he saying he's going to avoid possibly he only avoids this sort of censure motion because he kept it secret. That's what seems to be the inference from this.

FLETCHER: Again, if you've asked me the question about what we have done in a set of circumstances which did not occur, namely that this became public while we were in government, I'm just not going to comment on that. I am Manager of Opposition Business now. I wasn't Leader of the House when we were in government.

CONNELL: Censure motion is mentioned in the House's, as you say, predominantly about taking aim at the government. It's a bit of a weird one because you've got a former PM who is a backbencher now. What about an alternative, a motion of regret, for example? Not a censure motion, but one that was used against Craig Thomson. Would you be open to supporting that?

FLETCHER: Let's be clear. This is a political stunt from the Labor Party that wants to spend as much time talking about this as possible.

CONNELL: But you think it's important for the Parliament to voice in some way, even if it's not a censure motion, it's disapproval of what happened.

FLETCHER: What I think is important for the Parliament to do is to focus on the issues of concern to the Australian public.

CONNELL: You can do both. They can pass that legislation and also pass with respect…

FLETCHER: Every hour you spend on one issue is an hour you don't spend on another issue. Fairly basic principle that there's a finite amount of time in the Parliament.

CONNELL: That's just a time thing…

FLETCHER: And we ought to, it's a priorities thing. The priorities of this government ought to be on reducing cost of living, on living up to their promises of a $275 reduction in energy prices. But then…

CONNELL: If Labor does this though, they're choosing to use that time that way, what will you do if they move something alternative? Such as a motion of regret with that?

FLETCHER: Well, again, I'm not going to give a running commentary. We've had a public statement from the Prime Minister that Labor intends to move a censure motion. We've not seen further details. It wasn't on the notice paper last night. So, if and when the Government is more specific about what they're going to do, we'll respond at that time.

CONNELL: The National said they won't support The Voice. The Referendum on The Voice. Are you as the Liberal Party still deciding on this? And what are you waiting to decide on?

FLETCHER: Our leader, Peter Dutton has been very clear, as has Shadow Minister. Julian Leeser, this is a complex and significant change that's being proposed and we don't yet have the detail and in fact the Government seems to be making it up as they go along.

CONNELL: Just on that, you make a good point. We don't know the detail. So the Nationals jumping the gun already opposing it.

FLETCHER: Well, the Nationals are a separate party, I’m a Liberal. I'll make my comments about the policies of the Liberal Party. And what our leader has said is we want to see the detail, we're approaching this in a spirit of goodwill. Of course we are. But we need to say the detail. We need to see a clear model from the government we haven't seen.

CONNELL: And that's fair enough. But only eight out of 44 referenda have passed. You need all the support you can get. Surely if we're going to get this passed, if it's a good thing, once you say the detail, it will be disappointing the Nationals were already ruling out before they said the detail.

FLETCHER: Well, the National Party is a different party to the Liberal Party, the leader of the National Party has explained that party's position. We've got our own processes in the Liberal Party. We'll work through those in a systematic way.

CONNELL: That's the point. You're waiting for the detail and doing that systematically. The Nationals are making a decision before the detail that contrasts with a good process, doesn't it?

FLETCHER: Well, we're two parties. We're in a Coalition, but each party carries out its own processes. So, I'll leave it to the National Party. You know, they gave a media conference on this yesterday. So, they've been pretty transparent in their approach. But the Liberal Party determines our processes and that's what we'll do.

CONNELL: And what you've said is let's see the detail. That's the wise thing to do.

FLETCHER: Yes.

CONNELL: Which is different to the Nationals.

FLETCHER: Well, what I’ve said and what our leader has said and what our Shadow Minister has said is we want to see the detail.

CONNELL: Will your party have a party policy view or is a conscience vote on the table?

FLETCHER: Well again, Tom, these are all hypotheticals. We need to see detail, and frankly, the government has been shifting the goalposts, making it up as they go along. If they are to achieve their objective, what history does teach us, and you are right to make reference to the experience with referenda is that the Australian people need to see the detail, if you to overcome what from history is a significant burden.

CONNELL: I’m sure it is a busy time for you these days in Parliament, so I thank you for your time.

FLETCHER: Thank you Tom.

Further information: Jack Abadee 0403 440 099