Subjects: Visit to South Australia; Senator Jim Molan AO DSC; defence spending; shipbuilding capability in South Australia; Indigenous Voice to Parliament.
E&OE.
DAVID BEVAN:
Good morning, Peter Dutton.
PETER DUTTON:
Good morning. How are you?
DAVID BEVAN:
Very well. Peter Dutton, why are you in South Australia?
PETER DUTTON:
Well David, I’m here today, really, at the invitation of Tony Pasin, but to have a look at some of the flood-affected areas, to hear some of the stories on the ground, where some of the programmes are working, particularly around flood mitigation and where we can provide support. These things are always looked at through the lens of a bipartisan position, supporting the government in the support they’re rolling out either at a state or federal level. But it’s good to, you know, roll the sleeves up and just hear first-hand the accounts of what people have been through. That’s the purpose of the visit, nothing more complicated than that.
DAVID BEVAN:
Right, and just to explain to people how these things work, the federal government obviously have the levers here, they’re the people spending the money, making the decisions because they won the election, but it makes life a lot easier if you’ve got bipartisan support. So, if Anthony Albanese or the Treasurer looks across the chamber and says ‘Peter Dutton, we really need to spend ‘x’ amount of money and you think, well, no, you need more or less – you’ve been there and you’ve seen it first-hand?
PETER DUTTON:
That’s exactly right. It’s also good in terms of shaping our own policies before the next election. Opposition is a pretty miserable place, so you’re better off to use your time wisely. I think the best way to do that, the best way to use it wisely, is just listen to people. When you’re a minister – and I was defence minister in the last government and you’re just busy every day, there are just briefs coming up, there are issues that you need to deal with in the day-to-day management of the portfolio. In opposition, you can sort of stop and pause and listen more intently, read more widely and understand what’s working and what’s not, and it allows you to reset your policies so that you can take them fresh to the next election.
STACEY LEE:
And Peter Dutton, will you be listening to Michael Kroger from the Victorian arm of your Party and replacing Jim Molan’s Senate position with Tony Abbott? Do you think that’s a good idea?
PETER DUTTON:
I didn’t think you reported the news from Victoria over here in SA!
NIKOLAI BEIHARZ:
We cover news from everywhere.
PETER DUTTON:
Of course! I think there are a couple of points to make here. I mean, one is Jim Molan was an incredible Australian. He served his country in uniform for 40 years. He was a great senator and a really passionate Australian. I think from my own perspective, and I’ve said this to some colleagues in the last few days, I think frankly, out of respect for the Molan family and for Jim, the time is to concentrate on Jim’s contribution and his funeral is next week on the 25th – next Wednesday. There will be plenty of time for consideration of who will be candidates, or who will stick their hand up and we’ll go through that normal process. So, I’ll leave all of that commentary for another day.
DAVID BEVAN:
Well, just quickly though, do you think Tony Abbott would be an asset in the Parliament, back?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, there’s no question Tony Abbott would be an asset. I mean it’s the reason that Kevin Rudd’s been appointed to be our Ambassador in Washington. It’s why Julia Gillard does work for this government and Tony has an incredible skill set and there will be many other candidates who are very credible as well. But I’m just not getting into who would be the best candidate or who you would endorse or all of that process – I think it’s all a bit tacky at the moment. I want to concentrate on celebrating Jim’s life and I was speaking with Anne Molan yesterday, and obviously her family is, you know, going through a traumatic period, as any family would when they’ve lost their dad or their grandad or their husband.
DAVID BEVAN:
Fair enough. Now, people who are listening, there’s a very good chance that a few moments ago they would have heard on AM, Professor Peter Jennings from the University of New South Wales talking about defence spending. Peter Dutton, you’re a former defence minister and whatever decisions are made regarding the nuclear subs, regarding AUKUS, it’s going to affect South Australia for at least a generation. Interested in your views on what Peter Jennings had to say? Basically, he’s saying that the days of us thinking that we can create some magical industry here in Adelaide, that’s a mistake.
PETER DUTTON:
Well, again, I think Peter Jennings is one of the smartest minds on defence in the country, and there’s a lot that he says that we should listen to. I have a different view, though. I believe very strongly that we have to, as an island nation of only 25.8 million people, we have to recognise that we’re not a superpower, that we’re a middle power. We’ve got significant friends who respect our capabilities and we’ve been able to work alongside our allies, including the US and the UK in particular, New Zealand, Canada, for many decades.
Part of the reason that we’re a credible partner, both historically and prospectively, is that we invest well in training, in equipment, in defence materiel. There’s a huge economic upside, as we know in South Australia, but across the country otherwise, in a government that invests in defence assets and to contribute to the AUKUS programme, I do believe that we necessarily have to have a shipbuilding industry in Australia. Now, maybe that’s not exclusively a submarine building programme and maybe there are components that are built here and components that are built in Connecticut, in the US or in Barrow-in-Furness in the UK. We’ll see what the government has to say in March, but there is some likelihood that they could come to a common platform where Australia would contribute some elements. It’s clear within the US system now that there’s a lot of capacity constraint in servicing their fleet. So, with a greater presence of those vessels in the Indo-Pacific over the next decade or two, it may be that it’s not shipbuilding, but in addition to shipbuilding, we’re also repairing fleets of some of our allies and contributing to that maintenance piece, which becomes a huge beneficiary to jobs and local industries.
So, I think and look, to be honest in our discussions in negotiating the AUKUS deal – with the US in particular, but with the UK as well – there is an expectation that we have a capability domestically, that we’re not just drawing on the other resources. There’s also an element of getting the equipment as quickly as possible, given the deterioration in the security environment in the region. So, we’ve just got to balance all of that up.
STACEY LEE:
I think we’ve got that audio from Peter Jennings earlier. Here’s what he said.
[Excerpt]
PETER JENNINGS:
If we rely on this fantasy that somehow we’re going to turn Adelaide into a centre for the most complex warship and submarine construction the world has ever seen, I think we’re bound for disappointment.
DAVID BEVAN:
Are we bound for disappointment?
PETER DUTTON:
No, we’re not. I think one of the most exciting elements of this is to recognise that the Americans have only shared their submarine technology with one other country, that was the UK in the 1950s, and they’ve now made a decision to share it with their next trusted ally, Australia. Many other countries have asked in the intervening period, many other countries are asking today of the United States that they be included in the programme, and the US won’t give any consideration to that, so…
STACEY LEE:
What about we in Adelaide, Peter Dutton? Are we in Adelaide bound for disappointment?
PETER DUTTON:
No not at all…
STACEY LEE:
Peter Jennings there saying there’s this myth that Adelaide’s going to be the ship building up hub. The Fin Review is exclusively reporting this morning that if nuclear subs are deployed to be based in Australia, it’s likely to be Perth. Have we been fed this myth by multiple successive governments from different sides, but from your side of politics for a long time with Christopher Pyne and Malcolm Turnbull, that Adelaide is this big shipbuilding hub? Is it really going to be that, or will Adelaide be disappointed?
PETER DUTTON:
Adelaide won’t be disappointed, and I think we can walk and chew gum here at the same time. I think we want to be careful we’re not conflating issues. The first priority of any government – whether it’s a Liberal or Labor government – is to protect our country. The greatest threat obviously is from the north and you would expect assets to be placed in a position strategically that give us the greatest defence and nobody’s going to compromise on that for jobs or defence industry or anything else.
If an adversary decides to attack, we need to be able – firstly and most importantly – to deter any thought of aggression so that we can keep our country safe, but to be able to respond to any act of aggression. Nobody can really predict where the world will be in 10, 15, 25 years’ time. So, it’s important when we make the decision about the East Coast base to recognise that we need to get ships or submarines quickly to the north. There’s strategic advantage in having assets placed in Osborne and in South Australia and indeed in Henderson or even in Perth itself. So, there is a lot that goes into the plan. My biggest consideration, I’ve got to say, as Defence Minister, in terms of defence industry in South Australia was workforce more than the work. I mean, we committed to a shipbuilding program that had at least 15,000 Australian jobs by the end of the decade, and as you know, over 5000 of those will be in South Australia. There was none of that possible before the Coalition government. Again, there’s a lot of bipartisan support in the defence front as well, but Labor had never invested in ships, Labor had never ordered a submarine and we made that investment as a government, starting with Tony Abbott in 2013, through Malcolm’s time and then Scott Morrison’s time, so that the money that’s invested in South Australia now, the jobs that have been created, are only there because of a Coalition government.
STACEY LEE:
It’s a quarter to nine on ABC Radio Adelaide. That’s the voice of Peter Dutton, Federal Liberal Leader. Nikolai, Stacey and David with you for breakfast.
The Voice to Parliament, Peter Dutton, do you know yet how you’ll be voting on it and how the rest of your party will be voting on it?
PETER DUTTON:
Well Stacey, look, we’re in a difficult position I think – like millions of Australians at the moment – where instinctively you want to support a narrowing of the health indicators, infant mortality, the incidence of sexual or domestic, family violence. All of us have that in our heart. So, there’s no moral monopoly here by anyone. I think a lot of people are wanting to understand how the Voice would best deliver outcomes to Indigenous Australians, particularly those in regional and remote areas. In Alice Springs there is a national tragedy that is playing out at the moment. The Mayor of Alice Springs has been on the phone to Mark Dreyfus, begging and pleading for more resources to go into Alice. We’ve asked for a Royal Commission to look at what is happening in Alice Springs. I’ve said to the Prime Minister, personally, I think there is going to be vigilante responses there because people are really at breaking point. The police are stretched, the social workers are stretched, and I want to know what is going to best deliver outcomes as quickly as possible for those kids and those women on the ground.
So, I think reasonably we’re asking the Prime Minister, what is the detail of the Voice? How would it work? How do you propose it to operate and how would it intervene in a positive way into these communities and make for a brighter life ahead for these young kids?
DAVID BEVAN:
Well, just putting the Voice aside for a moment, what you should think should be happening today to help those communities? Because you’re talking about vigilantes. What do you think should be done today?
PETER DUTTON:
Well again, I’ve met with the Prime Minister on two occasions in relation to this issue, I’ve called for a Royal Commission. I went up to Alice Springs myself, because our people on the ground up there were saying it was just deteriorating terribly. There are some reports of an incidence of sexual assault taking place on a regular basis. Truancy is through the roof because there are many kids who won’t go back to their homes because it’s an unsafe environment and so they’re sleeping during the day, but out committing crimes of a night-time.
I met with whistle blowers up there, social workers who were in tears because they were returning kids back into environments where the kids are clinging onto their legs and don’t want to go back into that environment. Mentally, those people are broken, so the separation rates, the resignations of these workers is through the roof.
Many parts of the business community are employing private security guards etc. because they’re being broken into multiple times each month. There are some people who are leaving town, which is the point that the Mayor has made, and it’s really a dire situation and the Prime Minister is not listening to the voice of those elders.
STACEY LEE:
So, you don’t think that a Voice to Parliament will help with any of that? Because at some point you will have to make a decision whether or not you’re supporting it and it’s a little bit tricky, isn’t it, after your apology for the mistake that you made in the past, leaving the Chamber for the apology to the stolen generations. So, it’s a tough one here, whether or not you decide to support it or vote ‘no’.
PETER DUTTON:
Well, it is, Stacey. One of the things that affects me most and that influenced my decision back then around the apology was that I knew that sexual abuse was still taking place against children in those communities. I’d worked in that area as a police officer, and I can tell you, taking a statement from a woman who’s been raped, or from a young teenage girl who’s been sexually molested by somebody – that stays with you, and it influences you. I thought the apology should be made when those issues were resolved and for me, it upsets me even to talk about it, because, you know, in some communities they’re reporting that sexually transmitted diseases are running as high as 100 per cent amongst young people within those communities. Now that is not part of an Indigenous culture. When I met with the elders and the women in Alice Springs only a couple of months ago now, they don’t believe it’s part of their culture either.
If the Prime Minister is not listening to the voices of those women and those elders that we’ve bought to his attention personally, then I don’t know what he would do with the Voice and the message that they would convey. There are many serious issues to ask about the interference, if you like, or the interpretation of the High Court if something is changed in the Constitution. The Prime Minister has an absolute majority in the Lower House, he has control of the Upper House with the Greens. He could pass legislation on a Voice tomorrow, or when Parliament returns in ten days’ time, and the Voice could be put into operation and work, but as we saw yesterday, the Prime Minister hasn’t even sought legal advice from the Solicitor-General. Although his transcript that came out this morning, I see that’s been changed. But these are serious issues and Australians, if they’re being asked to vote for change on the Constitution, need to understand the intended and unintended consequences so that they can make an informed judgement.
DAVID BEVAN:
Will you give your MPs a conscience vote on the Voice?
PETER DUTTON:
We’ve been clear that we will have a Party Room discussion and like me, many of my colleagues are very keen to hear more of the detail. Some are instinctively opposed because they don’t believe it should be in the Constitution. Others believe that, you know, there are reasons around creating different classes of people as to why they would be opposed. But there are others who say…
STACEY LEE:
So, will you allow both of them to vote in whatever way they want and allow them the conscience vote?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, in the Liberal Party people can vote freely, that’s part of our culture. In the Labor Party you get sacked from the Party if you cross the floor. So, we’re more democratic in that sense. But I’ve been clear that our Party Room will have discussion and as a Party we will arrive at a decision. That’s, I think, the respectful way to approach the issue and the way that I intend to treat it.
DAVID BEVAN:
Okay. So, there will be a Peter Dutton Liberal Party position on this. But everybody knows if you want to cross the floor, you can?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, that’s a time-honoured tradition of the Liberal Party. You can’t do that if you’re on the front bench, there’s a Cabinet solidarity issue both in government and in opposition, but we’ll work through all of that. I think the onus, at the moment, is on the Prime Minister to release the detail…
STACEY LEE:
I mean that’s not a tough question though, Peter Dutton. Will you allow those frontbenchers who maybe do support a Voice to Parliament, will you allow them to support it?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, I’m running, not a sort of a dictatorial arrangement. I’m the leader of a democratic party and we will have a discussion as a Party Room and the Party Room arrives at a position, as we do on all legislation. All legislation comes before the Party Room, and the Party Room arrives at a position, as we do on all legislation. All legislation comes before the Party Room and the Party Room makes a decision on whether we will support that or not. It’s not decided on from high, and I genuinely want to hear from my colleagues. I want them to engage, I’ve been having those conversations with them over the Christmas break and we’ll respect the decision that comes out of the Party Room. I think at the moment, though, people rightly are asking right across the country, not just in my Party Room: how would this work, Prime Minister? If the High Court interprets it to apply to other areas then there’s nothing the Parliament can do about that. So, the wording is important first up, and these are questions that the PM should answer.
DAVID BEVAN:
Peter Dutton, thank you very much for your time.
PETER DUTTON:
My pleasure. Thank you very much.
[ends]