Transcript - Sky News To The Point

PETER VAN ONSELEN:  Alright, well we’re joined now as promised by Paul Fletcher, minister in the new Turnbull Government, thanks for your company.

PAUL FLETCHER: Thanks Peter, thanks Kristina. Good to be with you.

PETER VAN ONSELEN:  We will get to constituency questions in a moment, but first up – does it surprise you, the revelations today from my book – which we will buy a copy on Wednesday when it hits bookshelves – that Tony Abbott was asking the likes of Cory Bernardi to – as they’ve described it in the story – do his dirty work for him and get rid of Bronwyn Bishop?

PAUL FLETCHER: Well Peter, as I have spoken to none of the participants in that episode as described in your book about the matters flown by you, I find myself unable to comment intelligently, so I’ll leave it to you to comment on it.

PETER VAN ONSELEN:  [Laughs].

KRISTINA KENEALLY:    So exactly who do you speak to, Paul Fletcher, in the Parliament?

PETER VAN ONSELEN:  The entire backbench in Parliament.

KRISTINA KENEALLY:    Yeah because I’m just wonder- well, apparently not because … and it is on a somewhat lighter note, it seems your colleagues can only raise issues with you in constituency question time. I mean, last week, I think on Thursday you had three of the five constituency questions. You had the famous one, as my colleague Peter pointed out, where Sarah Henderson thought she had to tweet the question before she asked you. What- are you portraying some kind of aura of don’t approach me? Just raise it formally in question time?

PAUL FLETCHER: Ah look, like all ministers I speak regularly with my colleagues about a whole range of issues. Constituency question time, which has been going for a week, I think’s been a very good innovation. Labor has been critical of it, unsurprisingly, but I think what it’s demonstrated is that there’s a whole range of issues that members of Parliament, Coalition members of Parliament are very eager to raise. We have excellent active members of Parliament keen to pursue issues on behalf of their …

PETER VAN ONSELEN:  [Interrupts] Are they prepped beforehand, though? Because they always get announced as questions without notice, obviously the one from Sarah Henderson was prepped beforehand because you had the opportunity on Twitter to see it. But beyond that, are you aware of the questions that are coming?

PAUL FLETCHER: Look, it’s a matter for the members who ask the question as to whether they want to discuss it with a minister beforehand …

PETER VAN ONSELEN:  [Interrupts] So have any not given you a heads up on a question?

PAUL FLETCHER: Ah, they … they have generally been raised with me, but it’s entirely a matter for the member as to whether they want to raise it or not. Now, if you …

KRISTINA KENEALLY:    [Talks over] But just …

PAUL FLETCHER: [Talks over] … but can I- no, can I just say …

KRISTINA KENEALLY:    … just for the sake of our viewers, can we just make the point – if they didn’t raise it with you, you’d be likely to get up and say I’ll seek information and come back. It’s not going to provide a very informative question time.

PAUL FLETCHER: And that’s exactly right, but I want to be clear, because there’s been some criticism of the fact that Members of Parliament have raised these issues with ministers beforehand. But let’s take the question of Apollo Bay television reception raised by Sarah Henderson, Member for Corangamite. Now the reason she raised that issue was because it is a very live issue for her constituents, who have been getting difficult- having difficulty in getting television reception since we’ve moved from analogue to digital in that part of the country, as has happened all around Australia.

Now, the Australian Communications and Media Authority has been looking into that, it’s quite a complex issue. She was able to use this constituency question to highlight the issue, to get an answer from a minister – of course I made some inquiries with the Australian Communications and Media Authority before giving the answer, but that’s …

PETER VAN ONSELEN:  [Interrupts] She’s part of the Government, shouldn’t she be able to do that anyway?

PAUL FLETCHER: The whole purpose of constituency question time is number one to highlight issues which members, in their own judgement, regard as important to their constituents, and secondly of course it’s a tool that MPs have to ensure that ministers are appropriately motivated to respond quickly.

PETER VAN ONSELEN:  So what’s the process behind the scenes in terms of – you know, there’s obviously a large backbench to the Government, you’ve got a large majority. What’s the process of whose constituent questions come up first? Is it just a simple line where you work your way through so [indistinct] …

KRISTINA KENEALLY:    [Talks over] And you know what, that’s an excellent point, because again for our viewers, if it wasn’t organised, you’d presumably have 20 MPs jumping up seeking the call.

PAUL FLETCHER: Well clearly when it comes to constituent questions, as with other opportunities in Parliament, it’s only fair and appropriate that all members should be given an opportunity. So there’s a system to the extent of allocating opportunities, but …

PETER VAN ONSELEN:  [Interrupts] No one person gets favoured more than another, it’s a sort of a line by line, work your way through the backbench?

PAUL FLETCHER: In the broad, that’s the principle. But the key issue is, it’s a matter for the member of Parliament as to the issue they choose to raise and how they choose to raise it. So this is Parliament doing exactly what it should do. This is question time being exactly what it should be, which is an opportunity for any member to raise an issue with a minister which is of concern to that member and his or her constituents.

PETER VAN ONSELEN:  So would you be horrified to know or to find out that there was a backbencher or two that felt that their questions weren’t able to get through tactics committee, that they had questions that they would have liked to ask in question time by were unable to do so?

PAUL FLETCHER: Look, it’s always the case. There are – if you do the maths, there’s about 12 questions that each side can ask during question time. It’s always the case that there are more good questions that people have to ask than can be accommodated …

PETER VAN ONSELEN:  [Talks over] But I mean even when they get their turn, like …

PAUL FLETCHER: … in- in any one – in any one question time.

PETER VAN ONSELEN:  I mean finding out that it’s their turn, or their turn’s coming up, here’s the question we would like to ask, but guess what, we would rather – from the tactics committee, you’re not part of that I realise, but from the tactics committee we would rather you didn’t ask that, here’s one, or can you give us a better one that is more acceptable. Would that horrify you to find that out?

PAUL FLETCHER: Well the point I’m simply making is that constituency question time, what is different about this to the way question time has operated previously is that it gives members of Parliament themselves the opportunity to identify and pursue an issue. So they take the initiative, they put it up, and if you look at the character of the kind of questions that were being asked in the ones that were identified as constituency questions, they were quite specifically local. So they …

PETER VAN ONSELEN:  [Interrupts] David Coleman [indistinct] one got rejected from the …

PAUL FLETCHER:  Well David Coleman as Member – if I can just finish the point – David Coleman as Member for Banks asked about the M5; Andrew Laming, Member for Bowman, asked about HFC in his electorate; Luke Simpkins, Member for Cowan, asked about NBN rollout in his electorate. By the way, we’ve got a terrific story to tell on NBN, and one of the reasons that backbenchers are asking questions about NBN now is because under the previous government it was a waste of time; it wasn’t there to deliver broadband services, it was there to deliver political services. So if you bothered to waste your time asking about had anything been rolled out, oh no but we can deliver Julia Gillard in a hi-vis vest if you like, she can do a great photo opportunity for you.

KRISTINA KENEALLY:    [Laughs].

PAUL FLETCHER:  That’s what’s changed.

PETER VAN ONSELEN:  You still haven’t answered my question.

PAUL FLETCHER:  And that is why back benchers are now keen to ask questions about the NBN.

KRISTINA KENEALLY:    Let me flip it around then, because …

PETER VAN ONSELEN:  I’m waiting to use my example.

KRISTINA KENEALLY:    … okay well let me flip it around then [laughs] and let me ask you this. You’ve gotten quite a number of these constituency questions, your portfolio probably lends itself to constituency questions, that is of Major Projects …

PAUL FLETCHER:  Yes.

KRISTINA KENEALLY:    … not to mention Territories and Local Government.

PAUL FLETCHER:  Yep.

KRISTINA KENEALLY:    Is your office out there soliciting questions from back benchers?

PAUL FLETCHER:  No, no no.

KRISTINA KENEALLY:    Is your office going to MPs and saying why don’t you ask about this great new story?

PAUL FLETCHER:  No no we haven’t been doing that. No no, we have not been doing that. In fact, the questions that I’ve been asked this week, with the exception of one asked of me by Labor, but the questions I’ve been asked this week are ones that have been put forward by local members doing exactly what constituency question time is supposed to do, an opportunity for a member to raise a question about an issue of concern to their electorate.

PETER VAN ONSELEN:  So you obviously think this is a great idea, would you be horrified if it got canned? It’s only on a trial basis we got told. So if the Government, for example, at the end of this parliamentary year decided not to continue constituent questions next year, would you be sort of right out there saying that’s a bad idea?

PAUL FLETCHER:  Look, it’s a trial and we’ll see how it goes. My own assessment is I think it’s been quite effective in the first week, but it’s really a matter for the members who are asking the questions to make that judgement. I think the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House, Malcolm Turnbull and Christopher Pyne, are going to be much more influenced by what it is that backbenchers say about how effective it’s been rather than what they say- rather than what is said by me or other ministers.

KRISTINA KENEALLY:    Let me go to something else that’s come out of Peter’s book, a revelation if you will, and that is that Joe Hockey apparently inserted the $80 billion cuts in health and education into the budget papers without the Prime Minister’s office’s knowledge. Looking back, was that a strategic error on Hockey’s part? Did it derail the budget narrative for the Government?

PAUL FLETCHER:  Well look, again, I haven’t read Peter’s book, and you can feel free to go through the index starting with A-A aardvark, and finishing with zeppelin, and asking me about every revelation, and I’m sure there’s a lot of them, but I really …

KRISTINA KENEALLY:    But it- this is a …

PETER VAN ONSELEN:  This is on the front page of the paper.

KRISTINA KENEALLY:    … okay set aside that it was in Peter’s book, although I can never set aside anything because it was in Peter’s book, but set aside that it came as a revelation out of his book, it’s clear that Hockey put the $80 billion cuts, supposed cuts in health and education into the budget papers, but they’re not- into the budget narrative, but they’re not in the budget papers.

PETER VAN ONSELEN:  Because they’re obviously not in that four-year period.

KRISTINA KENEALLY:    Because they’re not in that four-year period. Now it’s reported today in the Australian that the Prime Minister’s office was very upset about this. Mike Baird came out and said that this was a kick in the guts to the states. In hindsight, was this a strategic error in the narrative of the 2014 budget?

PAUL FLETCHER:  Well look again, all I know is what I have read in The Australian over the weekend, the extracts from your book. It looks like a ripper book, I’m looking forward to reading it …

PETER VAN ONSELEN:  [Interrupts] But in fairness Kristina is not going to sort of who put it in and who put it out, not that either Tony Abbott or Joe Hockey denied that when they were asked, and you would think something like that, if they were asked and if it was untrue they would say that is patently false, but neither of them did that. In fact Joe Hockey justified why it was in there when asked the question, and Tony Abbott simply said I stand by the budget. But the question isn’t about whether you believe whoever’s account of this, the question is what you think about the decision, correct me if I’m wrong.

KRISTINA KENEALLY:    Yes.

PETER VAN ONSELEN:  In hindsight, it looks like it was a bad decision, or was it just a necessary one because there are issues down the track?

PAUL FLETCHER:  I have to tell you, I simply do not know the circumstances of the decision. What …

PETER VAN ONSELEN:  [Interrupts] It’s not about the circumstances, it’s about whether it was a bad decision or not.

KRISTINA KENEALLY:    It’s about whether or not- I mean it’s about was this one of the killer …

PETER VAN ONSELEN:  You know that, I know you know that.

KRISTINA KENEALLY:    … aspects of the budget narrative?

PAUL FLETCHER:  [Interrupts] Look again, can I just say, I was …

KRISTINA KENEALLY:    I mean I think we all agree that the budget in 2014 had a poor narrative.

PAUL FLETCHER:   I was not involved in that process. I’m not comment- I [indistinct] …

PETER VAN ONSELEN:  [Talks over] It’s not about- Paul Fletcher you are literally, dare I say it, one of the smartest people in the Parliament, I don’t for a moment believe you don’t understand the question.

KRISTINA KENEALLY:    [Talks over] Possibly the smartest person at this desk [laughs].

PETER VAN ONSELEN:  That’s true too.

PAUL FLETCHER:  I am simply not going to be making a comment about a report on something I was not involved in. And I have no knowledge …

PETER VAN ONSELEN:  [Interrupts] Does he have an earpiece same as us where we’re getting told we’ve only got two minutes of program?

KRISTINA KENEALLY:    I think he must. He can repeat, repeat, repeat until the time runs out.

PAUL FLETCHER:  Well I can simply tell you what I do know and what I don’t know, and I don’t know. So that’s the answer I’m going to give you.

KRISTINA KENEALLY:    [Laughs].

PETER VAN ONSELEN:  But what about the issue. Do you- I mean you don’t know who did it. In hindsight, it was included in the budget, $80 billion of cuts beyond the forward estimates, in hindsight did that message, whether it’s a good message to have or not, did it derail things? Because it brought Liberal premiers out, apart from anything else, condemning the budget.

PAUL FLETCHER:  Look I think what we saw in relation to the 2014 Budget was a continued exercise by the Labor Party in particular in citing a number. Now why were they doing that? It was because they had a particular narrative they wanted to pursue, and they wanted to completely fail to engage with the serious economic challenges that our country faces. Now, that is the work that the Turnbull Government is engaged in, I might say it’s the work the Abbott Government was engaged in. We say a complete lack of willingness by Labor to engage with that seriously, but we have got to engage with it seriously because we spend an enormous amount of money each year on a whole range of issues, we are spending more money than comes in the door, we have to have a plan to deal with that, and to get growth in the economy. And that is a key priority for the Turnbull Government is stimulating growth, because with growth you can do so much better on the budget.

KRISTINA KENEALLY:    Well done Paul Fletcher, you have just talked out of time on the show. Thanks for joining us on To The Point.

PETER VAN ONSELEN:  [Laughs] [Indistinct].

PAUL FLETCHER:  It was a pleasure, thank you very much.

KRISTINA KENEALLY:    Thank you all for joining us this afternoon, we’ll be back tomorrow.