News Day – Sky News
E&OE
SAMANTAHA MAIDEN:
Joining us now live, one of the winners out of this reshuffle, Christian Porter, who will move from Social Services and take on the portfolio of Attorney-General, joins us now in the studio. Good afternoon. Congratulations.
MINISTER:
Samantha, yes, well you did get me up here to talk MYEFO and some social services measures, which I’m very happy to talk about, of course.
SAMANTAHA MAIDEN:
We can do both. So what do you want to do in the Attorney-General portfolio? What do you want to achieve? What do you think is important for the Government to tackle?
MINISTER:
Well look, I’ve held a role at a state level of Attorney-General before, and I guess the first lesson is it’s very wise to go in and get the full run of briefings, particularly in a portfolio that has dealt with national security. But I would make this observation: that going forward, the two major agendas for us as a government are going to be the economic and physical security of Australians. So we’ve seen, with this reshuffle, changes to enhance our ability to grow jobs even further from the great 1000 a day that we’re growing at the moment, and obviously there’s large changes to national security and the way in which the Home Affairs portfolio will work. So part of what I will be doing is ensuring the smoothest possible transition of a range of machinery of government changes in that national security area.
SAMANTAHA MAIDEN:
Now, even though the overall responsibility of ASIO is moving to Peter Dutton, you will retain the responsibility for signing warrants for ASIO operations, is that correct?
MINISTER:
Yes. So, my understanding of that machinery of government change is that the Attorney-General’s portfolio will maintain a range of oversight, and in fact gain some oversight powers and legislative bodies. So, part of the Attorney-General’s role is a more traditional legal oversight, probity and governance role.
SAMANTAHA MAIDEN:
Okay, and also the Government was going to pursue reform in the family court and family law area. You’ve got familiarity with that from your previous role in the WA Government. What do you think are the problems there that the Commonwealth needs to address?
MINISTER:
Well, the family courts are a very complicated area of Australian public life and, of course, there are a range of people who go into the family court scenarios at the most difficult times in their life. So, George Brandis, as Attorney-General, had undertaken a fulsome review of the family court and family law structure in Australia. It’s the first time that has happened in a long time. Certainly, that was greeted with great enthusiasm, both from people who work in the industry of family law, but from all of the Australians who’ve had the experience in the family law process. I think part of that is designed to make the systems that we have as efficient and as timely as possible. One of the difficulties that has arisen is there is quite often a time period where there are delays, which doesn’t serve the best interests of people in the system.
SAMANTAHA MAIDEN:
Yeah, it’s interesting, because I think most people would say anecdotally that the only people who end up taking these matters to the family court are lunatics, but I suppose you only need one lunatic in a former relationship to end up in the family court. And I do know people that have been to the family court that say that because they understandably prioritise matters involving domestic violence, that if you’ve got more of an everyday matter the delays between you actually having your family court matter heard and getting a judgement can be up to a year or 18 months; couples have then got to go and revalue all of their real estate. Do you think in that situation, you know, justice delayed is justice denied for those families?
MINISTER:
Well, these are the very reasons that George Brandis commissioned the inquiry that he has, because we are aware than any system needs to be reviewed, and it’s reviewed for the purposes of finding efficiencies. And as you point out, Samantha, there will always be a degree of litigation in family court matters, of course, but the goal is to try and resolve as many matters, which is in the best interests of the separating couple and their children, as quickly, as efficiently and usually as non-litigiously as possible, because that is cheaper and it is faster.
SAMANTAHA MAIDEN:
Okay, now, picking up where your predecessor left off, do you believe that everyone has a right to be a bigot?
MINISTER:
Well, look, all those issues have been resolved. Certainly, I think that there is a requirement of any Attorney-General to take a very watchful eye over the status of free speech in Australia. That is undoubted.
SAMANTAHA MAIDEN:
Do you have a right to be a bigot?
MINISTER:
Look, they’re languages that you might put or that others might use, but that’s not language …
SAMANTAHA MAIDEN:
….George Brandis said that in the Senate.
MINISTER:
I’m aware of those historical matters.
SAMANTAHA MAIDEN:
Okay, you don’t agree?
MINISTER:
Sorry, I?
SAMANTAHA MAIDEN:
Don’t agree with that sentiment that everyone has a right to be a bigot?
MINISTER:
Well, as I say, I think that you have to find, as Attorney-General, the best balance between competing interests, and all of us have an interest to be able to speak freely, but again, people have a right and fair interest in not being discriminated against or harassed and matters of that nature under the relevant legislation. So that is about balance.
SAMANTHA MAIDEN:
Just one more in that area: presumably you can explain to me what metadata is?
MINISTER:
Yes, I can actually. So, I have worked over a time with metadata. As a former prosecutor, we used metadata quite a bit, but effectively metadata is the platforming of major systems data. So it’s data of records on a mass scale. Quite often telephone intercept data starts off with records of calls, one phone with hundreds of other calls to other phones and so forth. So it’s platformed, systemic data, usually of a transactional nature.
SAMANTHA MAIDEN:
We’ll give you a tick for that, spectacular.
MINISTER:
Thank you.
SAMANTHA MAIDEN:
Now, do you think that Pauline Hanson should have sashayed into the Senate in a burqa?
MINISTER:
No, I don’t, and there would be very little of George Brandis’ observations that I disagree with there.
SAMANTHA MAIDEN:
Okay. Now, a lot of people will be concerned about you leaving the Expenditure Review Committee. Do you know whether you’ll be asked by the Prime Minister to stay in that committee? I think you’re one of the few people actually on the Expenditure Review Committee that has a degree in economics.
MINISTER:
Well look, our Expenditure Review Committee is incredibly strong. I don’t expect to stay on that committee moving away from Social Services, but it’s incredibly strong, and what is the Expenditure Review Committee delivering for Australia? A thousand jobs a day, 140,000 less people dependent on welfare, a credible path back to surplus. Each year at this time of year, Labor were announcing worsening results and we’re announce improved results, so I’ve got no difficulty with the idea that the ERC will function very, very well without me. It’s an incredibly strong body of people.
SAMANTHA MAIDEN:
It’s pretty robust. It’s obviously got the Treasurer, Scott Morrison. I think he’s got a geography degree, doesn’t he?
MINISTER:
I don’t live inside Scott Morrison’s CV, but what he does …
SAMANTHA MAIDEN:
…. What did you get in your economics degree?
MINISTER:
What Scott Morrison does have is an amazing ability to assimilate enormous amounts of information and make good decisions. And again, Scott Morrison, as Treasurer, is delivering something that under six years of Labor was never delivered to the Australian people, which is real job growth, fewer people dependent on welfare, and a credible path back to surplus.
SAMANTHA MAIDEN:
Okay, so the ERC will remain obviously Scott Morrison, the Finance Minister Mathias Cormann, Barnaby Joyce would remain on that. Would Dan Tehan go into that, or was that a special role because of your experience in the WA Government? I assume you wouldn’t necessarily go into …
CHRISTIAN PORTER:
…these are decisions ultimately for the Prime Minister and Treasurer. The Social Services Minister first moved into ERC, if I recall, with Scott Morrison, and I understand the rationale for that is that, being around about a third of the overall expenditure of the budget, that it makes some sense having that portfolio in ERC. It’s not always been there, but that’s a decision that we made in due course.
SAMANTHA MAIDEN:
Does it trouble you that you’re starting the year with even fewer women in Cabinet than you started?
MINISTER:
Well …
SAMANTHA MAIDEN:
…. If you can find room for David Littleproud and John McVeigh – which most people have never heard of – in Cabinet, do you think you could have found a sheila in the Liberal Party that’s up to the job?
MINISTER:
Well, quite often people haven’t heard about you until you do get into Cabinet, so that’s just one of those things about the way in which public understanding of Cabinet and profiles work.
SAMANTHA MAIDEN:
No women up to the job?
MINISTER:
…but those sort of- look at those criticisms on their merits. Bridget comes into Cabinet, she becomes the Deputy Leader of the Nationals. Julie Bishop, of course, is in Cabinet, she’s the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party. The idea that we’re not well represented both in the National Party and the Liberal Party by incredibly capable, high-profile and high-performing women I think is absurd.
SAMANTHA MAIDEN:
Yeah, they’re high-profile but there’s few of them, and one of the reasons why they’re probably high-profile is there’s so few of them. If this Cabinet and this Ministry was put together on merit, are you saying that there’s not a single woman in the ranks of the Coalition who is up to the job of being put into Cabinet apart from Bridget McKenzie?
MINISTER:
Of course not. There’s any number of people who are outside of Cabinet who are capable of being in Cabinet …
SAMANTHA MAIDEN:
….right. So it’s not based on merit.
MINISTER:
… but it’s a very highly competitive business, and of course there are a whole range of considerations, and it is finding the right people for the right portfolios at the right time.
SAMANTHA MAIDEN:
But I’m just being honest, right …
MINISTER:
…. I wouldn’t expect you to be anything other than that.
SAMANTHA MAIDEN:
What did John McVeigh or David Littleproud ever do to justify going into Cabinet?
MINISTER:
Well, I think they’re both very capable people. I certainly know David quite well, and he’s had an exceptionally strong background in terms of agricultural economics and the agriculture industry.
SAMANTHA MAIDEN:
Right, but they’re not going in because of merit, they’re going in because of geography – the Prime Minister said that.
MINISTER:
Well, they’re going in to fill a position. Now, in David’s case the position is, of course, as the Minister of Agriculture. I would argue that there’d be few people better qualified than David in that respect because he has had a long history both in the industry, but also in the theoretics of the industry, so I think that he represents a great choice. But of course, there are a range of things that are required, but this is an incredibly strong team finishing off for us an incredibly strong year, and that puts us in a great position to advocate on behalf of Australians for the things they care about – jobs, making sure people move from welfare to work, and our national security in 2018.
SAMANTHA MAIDEN:
Okay, well let’s talk about moving from welfare to work. There has been a little bit of a suggestion that the Labor Party may resist these changes in relation to making migrants wait longer for welfare, possibly because they’re worried about some high migrant community- levels of high migrants in some of their marginal seats or some of their safe seats. What would be your reaction if Labor was to resist this move in any way? It doesn’t require legislation, I don’t think, but …
MINISTER:
…It does require legislation.
SAMANTHA MAIDEN:
It does? Right.
MINISTER:
I’ve read Labor’s public statements and press releases; they’ve not made a determination as to whether they would support it or not, but I think that we will get Australian support for this move. Now, to explain to all your listeners what’s being proposed: at the moment, there’re a range of welfare payments that you need to wait for two years before you’re able to access. Very strangely, there are also a range of welfare payments that you get immediate access to.
SAMANTHA MAIDEN:
What are they?
MINISTER:
Well, they are Carer’s Allowance, Family Tax Benefit, dad and partner pay and parental leave pay, and I mean one of the oddities of the system is that you have to wait, presently, two years to get a carer’s payment, but you get immediate access upon becoming a permanent resident to Carer’s Allowance in Australia. Now, what we are saying is that there should be a consistent system which mirrors the way in which the immigration system work and provides an architecture design to bring people to Australia who come for the purposes of contributing, not going straight into the welfare system.
SAMANTHA MAIDEN:
… Why have you exempted all the New Zealanders from that, though?
MINISTER:
Well, the New Zealanders are in a special category of visa.
SAMANTHA MAIDEN:
Oh they are, are they?
MINISTER:
They are, and they have been historically for a long time because of our special relationship with New Zealand.
SAMANTHA MAIDEN:
… There’s a special category if they can claim welfare from the minute they turn up in Australia.
MINISTER:
Well, yes, but there are some categories of welfare that they can’t claim at all while they’re on a Special Category Visa and some that they are able to access, and were having effectively no disadvantage for that group. But what we are saying is that three years is a reasonable period to wait to get access to payments that sometimes last for 20 years. Unemployment benefits are un-time limited. The pension obviously lasts for a very long time. Family Tax Benefits, depending on how many children you have, will last for a very long time. And the immigration system has always been designed to bring migrants, and we’re particularly talking here about skilled migrants, to Australia for the purposes of making a contribution to their community and not, of course, to enter immediately into the welfare system.
SAMANTHA MAIDEN:
Okay. Just a couple of quick questions before you have to go. On the royal commission, now- it was suggested in 2015 that the Commonwealth should have a redress scheme. We still don’t have one up and running and it was meant to be a matter or urgency. Why have you failed to do that?
MINISTER:
Well, we have legislation in that we’ll establish a national redress scheme. Whilst that legislation’s been designed over the last 12 months, we’ve been consulting with the states, the territories, churches and charities to maximise their opt-in. I’m very optimistic that that will happen very soon. The legislation, I think, will be passed early next year. The scheme will be up and running 1 July of 2018. Would you like these things to occur more swiftly? Well sometimes you would, but the reality is this is so complicated and its design required so much care and consultation with the states, the territories, churches, the charities, to ensure that you get maximum opt-in, that we took a course, which involved maximum consultation to bring about maximum opt-in, rather than hurrying it to a point where we couldn’t be guaranteed of that maximum opt-in.
SAMANTHA MAIDEN:
Okay, but there’s also the suggestion that you short-changed victims. The recommendation was a maximum payout of $200,000 for victims of child sex abuse and a minimum repayment of $10,000. You’ve opted for $150,000 and $5000. Why?
MINISTER:
Two things I’d say about that. One is that $150,000 as a maximum figure is not the only amount of compensation, if you like, that goes to victims. There is counselling services and a range of other victim support services and survivor support services that’ll accompany that. Secondly, of course, we had to make a determination that would maximise the opting in of states, of territories, of churches and charities.
SAMANTHA MAIDEN:
Right, so it’s designed to get people (unclear).
MINISTER:
Effectively to have the broadest, most consistent reach as possible, and I would also note that in designing that payment matrix and that amount, we took very close advice from an independent advisory council which included many survivor representative groups. They were supportive of that structure because they understood that that was the best way to get maximum opt-in, maximum reach and the greatest level of consistency.
SAMANTHA MAIDEN:
And just finally on that, that you did get some flack for going to the Ashes, on that Friday I think it was, rather than attending either the final hearing or the handover of the report to the Governor-General. Do you regret that decision?
MINISTER:
Well that was a Thursday, actually, but at that stage, as Social Services Minister, I wasn’t actually the minister responsible for that particular royal commission. I am now. I wasn’t actually scheduled or requested to be at that hearing and of course was in Perth at the time.
SAMANTHA MAIDEN:
Do you understand though why some of the victims felt that you should have been?
MINISTER:
Well, that’s perhaps understandable, but as I say, I wasn’t requested or scheduled to be at that meeting and was in Perth at the time.
SAMANTHA MAIDEN:
Fair enough. Alright, well thank you very much for your time today.
MINISTER:
Thank you, Samantha.
SAMANTHA MAIDEN:
Congratulations. You’ve had a pretty big job, and big shoes for Dan Tehan to step into, so no doubt we wish him well.
MINISTER:
And George Brandis has been a fine servant of the Australian people and made an enormous contribution to Australian public life and I’ve learnt a great deal from him.
SAMANTHA MAIDEN:
Alright. Thank you so much for your time today, Christian, we appreciate it.
MINISTER:
Cheers.