Subjects: ADF helicopter incident; Fadden by-election; Home Affairs contracts; NSW Liberal Party pre-selection; the Prime Minister’s Housing Australia Future Fund; the Prime Minister’s Canberra Voice Proposal; cost of living pressures; JobSeeker; LNP Senate preselection; the Solomon Islands.
E&OE
PETER DUTTON:
Well everyone, thank you very much for being here today. Earlier today I had a briefing –along with Andrew Hastie – from the Australian Defence Force in relation to the Taipan accident off the central Queensland coast. It’s obviously a dire situation and our thoughts and prayers are with the four missing individuals; proud members of the Australian Defence Force. I want to give a big shout out to all of those from the 6th Aviation Regiment in Holsworthy. They will be particularly feeling this situation and the operation obviously continues and I’ll leave it for the government to make any announcements in relation to, or updates in relation to these matters otherwise, but it’s a sober reminder of the very significant work undertaken by the men and women of the Australian Defence Force.
The people who were in the helicopters, in the formation otherwise; in front, behind, those that saw the crash or the impact zone, those that have been involved in the search so far; these are incidents that will scar them for life and it will influence the way in which they perceive their own service. It is a very harrowing thing to hear the update. But for those that are involved, it is a terrible circumstance, and to the families and to the mates, to all of those diggers who knew these individuals, I say our thoughts and prayers are with you at the moment.
Well, on a quite different subject, I’m very pleased today to be able to welcome to the Parliament Cameron Caldwell, who will be sworn in today for the seat of Fadden following the by-election. He put in an excellent effort, has been a great champion for the northern end of the Gold Coast and will sit in this Party Room and will make a very significant contribution to the Liberal Party, to his seat of Fadden and to the people of Australia. So, very much welcome his inclusion into the Parliament.
I also wanted to make a couple of comments in relation to this story around Home Affairs. Obviously I’ve been overseas for the last couple of weeks marking our 20th wedding anniversary – to try and ensure that there would be at least a 21st – it was nice to have a couple of weeks away, but obviously the government’s playing games here.
I’m very happy to co-sign a letter today with the Prime Minister referring these matters to the Integrity Commission. The Minister obviously is at loggerheads with the Secretary of her Department. If she wants to sack the Secretary of the Department of Home Affairs, she should speak to the Prime Minister about that, but having this tit for tat – and I feel like I’m in the crossfire of these attacks by Minister O’Neil on Mr Pezzullo – but conduct that behind closed doors. I mean, that’s an issue for the Minister. If the working relationship now is so dysfunctional between the Minister for Home Affairs and the Secretary, that’s an issue for the Prime Minister to resolve.
All I’d say in relation to those matters is that if there are allegations, then refer them to the NACC, but refer them back to the period of 2012 when the procurement arrangements were put in place, when many of the parties who are still around, contracting with Home Affairs during my time as a Home Affairs Minister, as were when Chris Bowen was Home Affairs Minister, when Julia Gillard was Prime Minister, when Tony Burke was the relevant Minister, the same procurement arrangements existed, the same parties, the provision of the same services operated since 2012.
But I’d make this point about my predecessors – unless it was different during Labor’s time, but certainly during my time as Home Affairs Minister – you’re not involved in the procurement of these services. It’s entirely an issue for the Department. No contracts that I was involved in, in relation to Home Affairs, and negotiating conditions or clauses within contracts – it’s a complete nonsense. So if there are matters to be referred, if the Minister has legitimate concerns around the conduct of any individual, I would be happy to co-sign a letter with the Prime Minister to refer it off to the NACC and allow them to conduct their own investigation.
There’s been some commentary around a briefing that I received. I’ve checked my records, I don’t have any record in my office of having received a briefing on that matter. I note the response from the Australian Federal Police to the question on notice; they don’t have any detail of the information that was alleged to have been provided to me. Obviously, as Home Affairs Minister, you receive briefings in relation to all sorts of matters from compartmentalised and top secret matters, all the way down. But regardless, you can argue –and no doubt the Commissioner could have more to say about this in Senate Estimates or when he’s asked questions about it – but the fact is that it’s inconsequential, even if a briefing was provided to contracts administered by the Department of Home Affairs.
My experience in Home Affairs from Mike Pezzullo down, through to those officers who were involved in the liaison with PNG, with Nauru, is that they were first class public servants. I was very well served and I think that’s been the experience, frankly, of Chris Bowen and Tony Burke and Brendan O’Connor and others.
If there are allegations to make in relation to departmental officers, or third parties, they’re properly investigated by the NACC. If the government is just after a political opportunity here, what they’ll do is announce an inquiry that just relates to my time in Home Affairs when the circumstances are no different since 2012, and if you want to refer it to the NACC, I’d be very happy to co-sign the letter with the Prime Minister.
I’m happy to take any questions.
QUESTION:
Mr Dutton, if the referral is specifically relating to your time in Home Affairs, are you still willing to co-sign the letter?
PETER DUTTON:
I think you’d know that that is only a political stunt at that point. I think this is an important point to make…
QUESTION:
If there was an allegation of corruption in that period, are you still happy to…
PETER DUTTON:
It has no bearing in relation to the conduct of the Minister. Obviously, the Department is advised of these matters or the AFP, ASIO, ASIS, will share intelligence with Departments, but as Minister I had no involvement whatsoever in relation to the contract negotiations, the execution of the agreements, and that’s true for all of the predecessors back to 2012. But what I do know is that the procurement arrangements, that operated when I was Minister, are the same as operated when Brendan O’Connor was Minister, when Tony Burke was Minister – and ff that’s the case – then refer the whole period and I have nothing to hide in relation to the matter.
QUESTION:
Mr Dutton, can I clarify that you have no memory of receiving that briefing, and are you concerned that the Department still went ahead with giving contracts to Mozammil Bhojani’s companies, even despite knowing he was being investigated for alleged bribery?
PETER DUTTON:
Well put the questions to the Department in relation to their conduct, but the advice that I’ve got is that there’s no record in my office of having received a briefing in relation to the matter. The AFP says – in their answer to the question on notice – that they don’t have any detail of what was provided to me, and that’s the facts as I know them.
QUESTION:
Do you have any memory of it?
PETER DUTTON:
None at all. No.
QUESTION:
You said you’d be happy to co-sign a referral to the NACC, but what about just making one yourself? And if you are happy to co-sign, what in particular about these allegations are you so concerned about?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, if the Minister’s suggesting that there is some sort of corrupt practice, or conduct, or action that’s been taken, then it’s right that that’s referred to the NACC and I’d be happy to refer it. But if…
QUESTION:
Yourself?
PETER DUTTON:
To anybody. I have no issue whatsoever. I just wasn’t involved in procurement or decisions around contracts, and that is the procurement arrangements of the Commonwealth.
I would be amazed if Julia Gillard as Prime Minister hadn’t received briefings from ASIS, or from ASIO, or from the Australian Federal Police in relation to individuals in the region – whether it was Nauru, or PNG, or elsewhere – that’s the nature of the information that would have been received.
Now, that information will be provided to Departments. If Departments make decisions around procurement or to enter into agreements to purchase services from people that have been subject to investigation, well that’s a matter for them. Now, they’ll have their own procurement rules that they need to abide by and the Department, this or any other Department, can answer questions in relation to it.
QUESTION:
So regardless of whether this is referred to the NACC, if the government announces an independent inquiry – not a NACC inquiry – but its own independent inquiry for this, would you cooperate?
PETER DUTTON:
I’d be happy to cooperate, but it’s a complete stunt. So, as I say, the same arrangements operated for me as Minister, as did for Minister Bowen. So why wouldn’t you just refer the whole period? You’re talking about the same people. I mean Nauru is not a big place and so the same providers of services would have entered into contracts with the Commonwealth during Minister Bowen’s period, as my period.
QUESTION:
You’re saying you never had heard any suggestion of suspect payments to anyone?
PETER DUTTON:
I’ve told you there’s no record of my office in relation to this matter, the AFP has no record of providing any information, or the information provided – as has been detailed by the Minister. If the Minister has some detail, well give it to the NACC – but these people that she’s making reference to, or the individual that’s been publicly identified, I suspect had been on the watch of agencies for some time and had any information been provided to previous Ministers, well, that could be investigated by the NACC if they chose to take up the referral.
QUESTION:
Mr Dutton, on the Defence incident, should the Taipan helicopters be allowed to fly again, does the Black Hawk acquisition need to be brought forward and is it even possible to do that?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, they’re grounded now, which is obviously standard procedure and we welcome that, but any discussion in relation to all of that I think we’ll leave for another day.
QUESTION:
Mr Dutton, will you intervene to protect Sussan Ley, Melissa McIntosh and Alex Hawke’s pre-selections? And secondly, when will you name a replacement for Stuart Robert on the frontbench? And who will it be?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, I’ve given strong letters of support to each of my colleagues who have asked for it. I’ll provide whatever support is needed to my colleagues; Sussan Ley obviously as Deputy, and to Melissa, who’s done a great job and is a very popular local member, and similarly Alex, or other colleagues that might be challenged.
As we know in the Liberal Party and the Labor Party, sitting members can be challenged and particularly in the Liberal Party, there’s a preselection body that comes together made up predominantly of local members of the Party – so that process will roll out – but I want them to be re-endorsed by the Party. I hope that they will and I’ll make an announcement in relation to Stuart’s replacement when we’re ready to do so.
QUESTION:
Mr Albanese’s now openly signalling he wants to get up a trigger for a ‘Double D’ using the Housing Bill, do you have any concerns if he gets one in his back pocket?
PETER DUTTON:
Look, I just think if the Prime Minister wants to go to the Australian public at the moment and ask them to score how the government’s doing on energy costs, and rising electricity bills and extra cost of living pressures, I think it’d be very interesting to see what the Australian public would have to say on this government’s record over the last 14 months, because they’ve – in two budgets – decided on outcomes in policy which have driven up your electricity costs, they’ve driven up inflation, they’ve driven up interest rates, they’ve driven up insurance costs.
I don’t think the government’s got a good track record at the moment, and I think there are a lot of families out there who are hurting in the suburbs, who are working extra hours, or the non-income earner has now returned back to work – I see on that Finder research that something like 40 per cent of Australians struggled to pay their mortgage in May.
There are a lot of Australians who are on big incomes and doing pretty well because they already had a house, and their house has gone from $2 million up to $4 million, and they’re not worried about what’s happening at the moment.
There are a lot of families in electorates like mine who are struggling to pay the bills at the moment. So, if the Prime Minister is looking at some political opportunity, in some tricky underhanded way to go to an early election so that he can try and belt the Greens around – because he’s obsessed with the Greens as we know – well, I don’t think the Australian public will reward that.
If he thinks there’s political advantage in going to an election now, well that’s a decision for him; but I just think his focus at the moment should be on how he can help and not hinder and hurt those families, and small businesses who at the moment are really struggling.
QUESTION:
He’s not necessarily talking about an early election, but just having the option you could use it later.
PETER DUTTON:
I mean you can go into the pedantics of it, if you’re creating a trigger, you’re doing it for a reason because you think there’s political advantage in it. I think the Prime Minister’s efforts at the moment should be concentrated on how to help families, not hurt them. At the moment the Government’s delivered two budgets, they promised to reduce electricity prices –electricity prices have gone through the roof.
There are families who are arguing at the moment over, squabbling over the bills that are piling up that they can’t afford to pay under this government, and I really worry for them, and I think the Prime Minister should as well.
QUESTION:
Over the last couple of weeks the ‘yes’ campaign has very much been prosecuting the case against Gary Johns for some controversial comments, talking about blood tests for Aboriginal welfare recipients, saying that Aboriginal people were ‘grateful’ for the gift of white settlement of modernisation. Should he resign from the ‘no’ campaign? Do you distance himself (sic) from his comments? And can I just get your response to the Prime Minister’s assertion that Voice is not about Treaty?
PETER DUTTON:
Oh, for goodness sake. Look, I just think the problem here, I mean all these inner city elites and academics, and all of those in rarefied positions in Canberra are obsessing about the wrong thing. It’s not about the way in which it’s being communicated. I see these functions that people are going to shouting yes at each other and the people in suburbs at the moment are worried about their own bills, and they’re worried about their families and they’re worried about their mortgage.
The problem with the Voice is the actual product; it’s the design of the words, it’s the breadth of the scope. Nobody’s arguing about wanting to provide support to Indigenous Australians or improving the situation in Alice Springs. We’re absolutely dedicated to that. That’s not the problem. The problem is that it does much more beyond that. It widens, as you know, give her credit to Megan Davis and others who are being honest here.
This is a test of Anthony Albanese’s credibility and his integrity, and at the moment he’s failing it on the Voice, because when you go back over public comments that have been made by the Prime Minister since he’s been elected, and just after he was elected, it paints a very different picture from what he’s trying to tell Australians today.
I think a lot of Australians at the moment are getting angry with the Prime Minister because I think we’re in a stage now with this Prime Minister where we’re talking about core and non-core promises. I think we’re at a time when he’s saying one thing to one audience and then the complete opposite to the other.
In relation to Mr Johns, I don’t have any comments in relation to that.
QUESTION:
There’s confusion this morning around the Coalition’s position on Jobseeker. Can you clarify whether the Coalition will support increasing the rate of JobSeeker if your amendment to lift the earnings threshold fails?
PETER DUTTON:
Look again, I think we’ve been pretty clear here. That is, we thought with the expense that the Government was proposing in increasing the payment, that at a time where you wanted to increase participation, you wanted to get more people out into a tight labour market, it would be better to spend that money or to apply that money to a model where you could allow people to work more hours.
Now, we’ll move that by way of amendment. The amendment won’t get up because we don’t have the numbers, and ultimately if that goes down – as we suspect it will unfortunately because I think it’s a good policy – then we’ll support the government’s increase of the $40. So, we’ve been clear about that.
QUESTION:
Would you repeal it if you win the election?
PETER DUTTON:
No.
QUESTION:
Should Queensland’s Senate pre-selection be held again?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, that’s a matter for the LNP.
QUESTION:
Would you support Senator Rennick if it does get (inaudible)?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, I supported Senator Rennick before – I think he’s done a great job for the people of Queensland, and I supported him in the preselection, and if there’s to be a rerun of the preselection, I’d certainly support him in that as well.
QUESTION:
The Prime Minister of the Solomon Islands has said that he would like to have his own military and Australia has said it might help him with that. Would you support Australia helping the Solomon Islands set up a military?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, I think the priority for us at the moment is to provide support to our near neighbours and to continue the very deep and strong relationship that we’ve had for a long period of time – I think that’s the priority.
Sovereign issues and decisions are entirely for the Solomons, or for PNG, or for whoever else it might be. So, I don’t comment in relation to those matters, but what I would say is that there’s a bipartisan position – as there has been from day one – in relation to the power that we project into the region, the support that we provide, particularly to family, including in the Solomon Island. We have a rich and deep history together and we shouldn’t allow others to disrupt that. It’s incredibly important for stability in the region that those relationships strengthen and deepen, not weaken. We shouldn’t accept, as of course we don’t, others who might seek to undermine those arrangements.
Alright, thank you very much.
[ends]