Subjects: National Anti-Corruption Commission; Voice to Parliament; Optus cyber attack.
PETER DUTTON:
Thank you very much for coming along this morning. I just wanted to make a couple of comments, then I’ll hand over to Julian and we are happy to take any questions from there.
It was in this room when I first became Leader that I declared our support for an integrity commission. I fought my life against criminal behaviour and there’s no place for corrupt behaviour in public life here in Canberra or anywhere around the country. I made that clear to our Party Room and we want to make sure that we can support a process that the government puts in place which is sensible at the same time.
So, the people who have been engaging in corrupt behaviour, if that’s the case, or prospectively will, should know that the Coalition supports a very strong model that will weed them out and will put them before an integrity commission and potentially before the courts and to be convicted by the courts if that evidence is provided. So, this is a very serious issue. We’ve conducted discussions and negotiations with the government over a period of time. I want to thank the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General as well for the way in which they’ve been able to engage with us and I know that they’ve engaged with the independents and The Greens and others in relation to this issue.
The process will follow just the normal process of dealing with Bills. It hasn’t been before our Party Room yet, although we’ve had discussions in our Party Room and at a Shadow Cabinet and leadership level in relation to the issue. So, once the Bill – obviously having been introduced today – is examined, there will be the process of the inquiry and that will no doubt give up arguments for amendments etc, so we will have a look at all of that, we’ll assess that as a Party in time on a case-by-case basis and then we’ll make an assessment in relation to how valid they are and whether or not we agree with the points that have been made.
I think the important thing about the Select Inquiry is that it’s going to allow people to give evidence about their experience. We want a situation where people who have committed a criminal act are held to account. I don’t want innocent people being trashed and I don’t want their reputations being trashed and I don’t want people committing suicide as we’ve seen in South Australia and elsewhere as a result of false allegations having been levelled against them. So, that’s why you need to get the balance right here; it’s why the fanatics within The Greens need to be treated with great caution in relation to this issue – and most issues. I might say – but that’s the approach that we’ve taken. I think it’s a responsible approach by the Coalition and we’ll continue to work with the government in a constructive way.
I’ll hand over to Julian and happy to take any questions.
JULIAN LEESER:
Thanks, Peter.
The Coalition supports a corruption commission because corruption is wrong and should be stamped out. It’s to be remembered that it was the Coalition parties that introduced Australia’s first corruption commission way back in 1988. People who break the law should face the law.
But it’s important that we take serious care because the Parliament is potentially giving extraordinary powers to the Commission. These are not the sort of powers that apply in the normal criminal process. People don’t have the right to silence, the privilege against self-incrimination doesn’t apply, legal professional privilege can be overridden and gag orders can prevent, even a witness, telling a family member or a mental health professional that they have been the subject of an inquiry. The Corruption Commission can be police, jury, judge and executioner.
We believe that the same rights that apply to murder or terrorism suspects should apply to the Parliament House gardener, cleaner or cook who could be subject to the Corruption Commission.
It’s important that the committee examining the Bill, as Peter said, hear from the experience of the various state and territory corruption commissions. It’s important they hear from lawyers who’ve appeared before those, from witnesses and parties, in order to ensure that they gain from that experience so that we get the balance right.
QUESTION:
I know the legislation has only been out for a few minutes, but what is your inclination towards the criteria for public hearings? Are you happy with that or would you like to move to soften that?
PETER DUTTON:
I saw the Attorney make some comments on this yesterday, I think, frankly the balance is there. There’s the ability for public hearings to take place – where it’s appropriate to do so. There’s the ability for private hearings to take place – where there’s the ability to do so. If you look at comments that have been made by a number of the independents and others over a period of time, that’s exactly what they’ve argued for. It’s the Commissioner who has all of the details of a particular allegation or investigation before him or her and that person has the ability to decide whether it would be in the best interest for a public hearing or a private hearing to be held. There will be criteria around it otherwise and I believe that that is getting a balance right. I don’t want a show trial. I want people who have committed a crime to go to jail, that’s what I want. I don’t want a situation where somebody has their reputation trashed and after a couple of years they don’t even know whether or not the investigation is still at stand. You’ve seen circumstances where the investigations have come to a conclusion and the person under investigation hasn’t even been advised that they’ve been cleared. So, we want some process here, some natural justice, and the rules of evidence and other elements that are important. But in relation to the hearings, I think the government has got that right and I think really, unless you’ve got another agenda, you’d have to draw the same conclusions.
QUESTION:
Is exceptional circumstances, is that a make or break issue for the Coalition in deciding support and do you agree with the former Prime Minister who said the NSW ICAC is like a kangaroo court? Do you agree with that assessment?
PETER DUTTON:
I support the government in the model that they’ve put forward. As I said, one of the first statements I made was that I’m in favour instinctively of an integrity commission but I want it to have that balance and I don’t want it to become an endless witch hunt for people. I mean, it’s salacious on occasion for the media but families are destroyed out of this and the families are the ones who I think we should hear from on the inquiry. We’ve supported a sensible discussion so far, we will continue that, we’ll hear all the evidence that comes before the committee and if people have got compelling cases to make one way or the other, well we will consider all of that at the appropriate time. But from our perspective, we support the ICAC, we want the processes put in place so there can be a process of integrity.
QUESTION:
Clearly, there’s been an election. You are now in opposition. Before the election, the Coalition was vehemently opposed to any idea of public hearings. Is this a softening of stance based on principle or based on the fact that you are now in opposition because of that position and so many independents came through and took seats campaigning on an anti-corruption platform?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, before the election, you know, I don’t know how far back you want to go, but at different points in time, Labor wasn’t in favour of an integrity commission at all. The fact is that we both went to the election with a commitment for an integrity commission and we are working sensibly and constructively with the government to implement an integrity commission, which will root out any corrupt behaviour, which will hold people to account but not conduct show trials and destroy the careers and the reputations of people that have no case to answer.
QUESTION:
Are you concerned that the Commission does have the power to look at things retrospectively?
PETER DUTTON:
No, that’s the nature of it. The only concern I would have as a general principle, I’ve got to say, is if, for example, a Hawke government minister made a decision in relation to a particular matter based on the facts and the law of that era or that day, that that is judged by a different criteria today: so that there’s a retrospectivity which is in effect based on a different standard, if you like. If a Gillard government minister made a decision in relation to an acquisition, for example, and it was completely lawful at that time and the Commission is now saying that by the 2022 standard or definition it’s not lawful, then I think that’s something that needs to be discussed, which no doubt can be dealt with during the inquiry.
QUESTION:
You’ve said that you want to ensure that people who commit crimes go to jail, but what is your view of a lower threshold, that this Commission will have the capacity to look at, for example, the administration of government grants, pork barrelling as it’s been described. Do you think it’s appropriate that it has the ability to examine those kinds of issues?
PETER DUTTON:
Look, again, just talking in terms of principles – my view is that a government is elected to make decisions and to implement those decisions. I know there’s been a lot made about carparks and other grant programs – when Labor was in government, when we were in government – election promises that the Labor Party made, election promises no doubt that the teals made. If you were elected by your local community, then your responsibility is to implement those promises.
Now the carpark that’s near completion in my electorate, probably one of the biggest issues locally because the state government wouldn’t fund it, the local council didn’t have the money to fund it and there was support from the federal government because it was a red hot local issue that when you spoke to locals, they had safety concerns for their kids on bikes and whatnot, in the morning, cars parking up on footpaths, across driveways. Now, if that’s a corrupt act, well, it’s inappropriately defined. So, I think, again, there’s a level of common sense and the modern reality as well is that at a federal level, there are no property developer interactions, if you like, which is the root of the problem, if I might say – generally speaking – at a local government and state government level. Ministers in this government, as was the case when I was a minister during the last nine years, that the decisions around contracting and all of that procurement, it rests with the department, to be honest, in most circumstances. So, I just think we need to be realistic about what level of corruption you think there is. I know there’s a lot of hype from some of the independents etc., but I think just a calm, measured approach to what is a very serious issue is what’s required.
QUESTION:
Are you concerned, though, on that element of retrospectivity, that the first few high-profile cases of this National Integrity Commission could be members of a former government?
PETER DUTTON:
No, I’m not concerned. If people have done something wrong then they should be held to account. I don’t care whether their Liberal or Labor or Teal or Green, whoever they are, if somebody’s been involved in corrupt conduct then they’re rightly captured. If it’s a show trial and it’s a witch-hunt and the process is being abused and there are vexatious complaints, then, I have a problem with that. So, I think we’ve shown, in a number of circumstances – most recently in relation to this debate – that we will have a mature response and a response from the Coalition, which is considered, and that’s what we’ve done in relation to this matter.
QUESTION:
On Four Corners you said that the government had conceded your point about show trials and that you were confident that you could support their Bill. Is that evidence that a deal has already been done and did you lobby for the exceptional circumstances threshold for public hearings?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, as I said, we’ve had discussions with the government, which have been conducted in good faith. I’m not going into the detail of what the government said was their position or what they argued back and forth. We had a sensible discussion with the government, and I’ve got a good relationship with the Prime Minister on a number of issues. It’s in our national interest that that’s the case, and I’m not going into the detail of those discussions.
QUESTION:
Just on the question of your relationship with the Prime Minister, you’ve obviously had these productive discussions on the Commission. Do you expect to have consultations with him or to be consulted on the Commissioner because obviously the Commissioner who leads the Commission will have a great deal of power?
PETER DUTTON:
I think that it’s a courtesy that should be extended, but that’s a question really for the Prime Minister.
QUESTION:
It hasn’t been opened up so far?
PETER DUTTON:
I haven’t had that discussion with him. It’s an important question, though, because what I don’t want the commission to be is a branch office of Slater and Gordon. I don’t want it to be filled with lawyers who have just come out of the Fair Work Commission because they see a more interesting area of practice. This can’t be an anti-Coalition thing. It’s an institution which is important. The rule of law applies equally to everybody, and that is something that we live and die by, and I don’t want to see that subverted for political purposes. So, it would be, effectively, in my judgement, an act of corruption if this body was used inappropriately to try and pursue somebody. Now, that’s why the appointment of the Commissioner is incredibly important and I would expect there to be consultation. I would expect that person to be a person of considerable standing and I’m sure the Prime Minister has that in mind.
QUESTION:
On the powers of the Commissioner, can I just take you to some of the powers outlined in the Bill? So, it will be able to compel people to produce documents, information, obtain a warrant, and to enter and search premises, including Commonwealth premises without a search warrant, seize evidence and exercise limited powers of arrest to ensure attendance of a hearing. They’ll also be able to intercept telecommunications and use surveillance devices. Does that, on the face of it, concern you at all, or is that as you would expect?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, that’s the that’s the nature of the integrity commissions: they’re significant powers and that’s why there needs to be safe checks and balances in place. To Michelle’s point before, it’s why the appointment of the Commissioner is particularly important, so that you have somebody of integrity beyond reproach and to make sure that those significant powers are used judiciously and in a way that would be in accordance with the law, but Julian might add to that.
JULIAN LEESER:
Look, it’s why the work of the committee is going to be important because we want to hear the experience of what’s occurred in the different state commissions where they have exercised those powers and to test whether the safeguards that have been put in place for this Commission meet the experience on the ground of the performance of those powers at the state and territory level.
QUESTION:
It sounds like The Greens and the teals are going to push quite hard to have the threshold for a public hearing lowered so that it’s more likely to happen. But for you, is that sort of ‘exceptional circumstances’, is that a deal-breaker in terms of the legislation like would you not want to go ahead?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, I’d just make this point, I mean, what’s the motivation of the Greens and the teals here? If their argument is that the Commissioner doesn’t have the capacity or the rigour in his or her process to determine whether – on all of the facts available to them, not publicly known – that there should be a public hearing or a private hearing: what is their argument against that? I mean, there are some within The Greens and some independents who want to see melee in this place and want to see the system pulled down. I’m not of that view. I actually am a strong defender of democracy in this country and a strong believer in the system that we’ve got that means that we enjoy one of the best countries in the world today and I’m not going to see that trashed by people who want to see it trashed for their own political purposes.
That’s why I think it’s been important for us to be constructive, to be sensible and pragmatic in our approach to our discussions. We haven’t been dogmatic. We haven’t been drawing red lines and the rest of it. There’ll be elements of the Bill that we don’t agree with when it passes through the Parliament, but it’s general principle we do agree with, and I want to say the safety checks and balances in place because this is something that will survive for generations. That’s why I think you should, frankly, ask The Greens why they don’t trust the Commissioner on all of the facts known and available to the Commissioner, to make the decision about whether a hearing should be public or private.
QUESTION:
Can I just go back to about the selection of the Commissioner. Do you take some heart from Mr Dreyfus saying yesterday that no one should be seeing this Commission as some kind of vehicle for political payback? And just to double check on your processes now, so the Coalition won’t decide a formal position on this until October 25 or will you have a special Party Room before then?
PETER DUTTON:
No, just to deal with the last part first, it won’t be any different to any other Bill. So, you’ll normally get the inquiry process, it’ll throw up amendments, things that we haven’t thought of, concerns we had that have been dealt with and then that’s the time at which the Party Room can consider it. But we’ve got an in-principle stance, if you like, in relation to the issue at a higher level and then the broader amendments as they’re proposed, perhaps by the government out of the inquiry, we can deal with that. And sorry the first part of your question was…
QUESTION:
Mr Dreyfus yesterday…
PETER DUTTON:
Ok, yes sorry. Look, I think we pay on results. Let’s see what he says and we’ve approached this with good faith and I trust that Mr Dreyfus will repay that in kind.
QUESTION:
Given your personal commitment to stamping out corruption and you spoke about your own background, how do you reflect on the fact that the Coalition wasn’t able to do this in office? How disappointing is that for you? And when you look at the two bills, how do they compare? Is this actually better for the consultation process than the one you had before?
PETER DUTTON:
Look, I think again, Karen, wait to see what comes out in the final form and what the difference was to what the previous government was proposing. I suspect the government probably is a little more pragmatic now that they are in government than when they were in opposition. All I can tell you is that, from my perspective, we’ve approached it in good faith and in a sensible way, hence we’re standing here today.
QUESTION:
Is it a personal disappointment for you, though, that you didn’t manage to get it done when you were in office?
PETER DUTTON:
No. I am happy to be here in this position now where I can affect an outcome and that is what I am doing.
QUESTION:
Can I ask you some questions on a couple of different matters. Firstly, the two of you before us, I think this is the first time since the election. On the Voice, should Julian Leeser come to you and recommend that the Coalition back it, are you prepared to back his recommendation – even if it defies the view of your Indigenous Senator, Jacinta Price? That’s the first question. Second question, completely different, about a fellow called Samson Jubi. ABC has a got story about this attempted extradition of this fellow from PNG, he’s now a Cairns resident. What can you tell us as to why he has not yet been extradited to PNG where he is involved in a fraud investigation?
PETER DUTTON:
On the second issue, I don’t have the intelligence or the advice that I would need to make a comment in relation to it. That’s a question for the minister. If it is a matter that is before the courts now than it’s not something that I will comment on.
In relation to the first question, Andrew, Julian and I will take the position adopted by our Party Room. That’s the position that we will take. So, as the Caucus is sacrosanct within Labor Party processes, so, too, is our Party Room. There are a range of views within our Party Room on what is a very important issue. Again, I think we have had a very sensible and mature approach to this issue. It causes me concern that even the most basic of questions can’t be answered by the government and I think that’s given rise to confusion, even with Indigenous leaders that I’ve spoken to in the last 24 hours, who are concerned about what is happening, what’s in place, and what the next steps will be. The government, the Labor Party, the union movement is a well-oiled machine, and I think it is frankly quite surprising that the steps haven’t been more defined and the approach more strategic. But that’s an issue for them and so my Party Room wants to hear answers to those questions before we make a final decision.
QUESTION:
On the Voice, Mr Dutton, do you need to have a Party position? I go back to the last referendum in ‘99 on the Republic, I remember it, some of us were old enough back then, but John Howard didn’t have a fixed position for the Coalition. He let people have their own views as long as they didn’t fight each other in public…
PETER DUTTON:
Did that work out or not?
QUESTION:
…the odd skirmish between Vanstone and Minchin and Reith! Do you feel the need to have a binding party position on the Voice or are you prepared to…
PETER DUTTON:
Well, Phil, again, our position will be the Party Room position. There are different options open to the Party Room at the time of the discussion. The problem at the moment is that you don’t have enough facts before you to make a decision. I had one of the mining CEOs in the other day, they were doing the rounds with the government ministers and came to see us and in that circumstance for example, where you’ve got a settled arrangement between the local elders and that mining company, you’ve got a royalties arrangement that’s been negotiated, you’ve got Indigenous employees within the mine, that local area reliant on the activities of the mine because there aren’t many other industries there. What happens in that circumstance if there is a piece of legislation here that would curtail the activities of that mine or impact on another development application etc.? Would the voice of the local elders be overridden by the Voice of the elected representatives? I don’t know. My only point is that I think there are reasonable questions to ask and so far we haven’t had the answers, so, let’s get the answers.
QUESTION:
Would it be politically tenable for you to support the Voice if Jacinta Price tells you not to?
PETER DUTTON:
Oh Andrew, I’ll let you make all of those political judgements, but that’s your third question and others haven’t asked at all, so…
JOURNALIST:
…Yes, that was a bit cheeky!
QUESTION:
Just moving to Optus. The Coalition have called on the Government to provide new passports for victims of the cyber attack. Who should pay for that? Should that be the taxpayer or should Optus foot the bill?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, I mean, in the first instance, the most important aspect is to make sure that people’s position is secure. So, leaving what the government’s done, or hasn’t done, or Optus the same to one side – the most important thing, the most important message for people to hear at the moment is that they need to, if they think they’ve been affected, they’ve been contacted by Optus or they’re a customer or a past customer – say in the last five or six years of Optus – they have to take actions to protect themselves. So, changing their passwords, jump onto a website called IDCARE – we provided them with funding when we were in government, they’re a very important partner – get some information. Take up the offer of the Equifax membership so that you can monitor whether or not there’s unusual activity on your credit applications etc.. Make sure that you change passport numbers, driver’s licence numbers, etc., if that’s what’s required. So directly in relation to your question, though, the most important thing is that it gets changed. So, the government should waive that fee – if that’s appropriate. People should pay the fee and then seek to recover it either from a government level or from the individual level from Optus in due course and frankly Optus should meet the cost of that, and I don’t know whether that’s something they’ve announced or not, but it’s something they should if they haven’t. But look, I mean, there’ll be all sorts of legal actions and different actions that are taken by individuals, collectively, or whatever in due course. But the most important thing at the moment is to make sure that people protect their own finances because identity theft is rife and if people see any unusual activity then they need to make sure that they report that.
I’ll just make this final point. I mean, Clare O’Neil has basically been missing in action on this issue. I think there are some things I’d give the government a tick for since they’ve been elected, I think this has been a very significant failure. This is something that affects 10 million Australians in varying ways, and the Minister took days before she put a tweet out – found time tweet about the football and about all of that – all the while people were being put in a vulnerable position. I don’t think that’s good enough, and I think a lot of Australians, frankly, could have acted sooner had Clare O’Neil got off her hands and acted.
QUESTION:
Do you think there’s any argument to changing federal law so that there would be fines imposed on Optus or companies like that in this situation in the future?
PETER DUTTON:
We’re open to that. Look, we live in a different age. This is like saying that in 1980 somebody went down to Optus, broke into their building and stole filing cabinets full of personal data. That would be the equivalent. Now, today, we all live our lives online. We talk about our kids being on our devices, we live constantly on them ourselves and we do internet banking, all sorts of secure messaging and it’s how you live your life. Now, if that device is compromised or if the data is compromised, or if there aren’t adequate protections put in place by companies that should be providing that protection, then there should be a price to pay. That would be a very significant shot across the bow to other companies that have inadequate processes in place.
I acknowledge that Optus is doing everything they can in a difficult circumstance. We don’t know whether it was a complicated compromise or whether it was a simple intrusion – seems to be a conflict in what’s coming out of the government on that front, but whatever. We are in a situation where our kids are having data stripped from their phones every day. We’ve made this point about TikTok and Instagram and others. These data packages are going to follow these kids for their entire life, and if we don’t take a better interest in what is happening online, then our kids are going to be exposed to all sorts of compromise later on – to blackmail and the rest of it. That is just the modern reality, and I think this is just a wake-up call for Australians. If you have a state actor, as we saw during COVID – taking information of people’s health records, their personal health records, results of blood tests, the aged care records of individuals – that is something that we wouldn’t tolerate in the real world, so why would we tolerate online?
QUESTION:
On the upcoming Budget should the government be using the $50 billion budget improvement to offer Australians cost of living relief?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, the Government went to an election saying they had a plan to help Australians with their cost of living pressures. As it turns out – there is no plan. Now they’ve got a chance in October in the budget to outline how it is they’re going to help families who are seeing dramatic increases in their electricity prices, dramatic increases in their gas prices, their mortgages going through the roof, and there are lots of families who are under pressure already. You wait for Christmas when people are coming off fixed interest rates from a low level up to a variable rate, or locking in for another period of time, their interest rates in some cases will do more than double, and that is going to have a huge impact on families. So, it’s no sense the government saying, well, we’ve now been elected and we don’t know what to do. They’ve got all of the resources of the Treasury, of Finance, of the central agencies at their disposal. If they can’t come up with a plan, then Australians will suffer. I always worry that under Labor – particularly when it comes to the budget decisions that they’ll have to make in relation to economic decisions – that they will always make a bad situation worse. That’s what we’re going to see under this government. I mean, Jim Chalmers couldn’t be any cockier. Chris Bowen parades around in Question Time. But, in the end, it’s families that are hurting.
Now, you look at what’s happening in Europe at the moment, with prices of energy in the United Kingdom, the possibility of rolling blackouts in California, what’s happening in Germany. This is a very serious situation, and the government continues down a path where they’re putting more pressure on families, not less. I worry very much for families and businesses, at the moment, because we are going to come into tough times. But the economy here and as you point out – the economy that the Labor Party inherited from us – is much stronger than what is the case in the United Kingdom or the United States. The United States and the United Kingdom are going into recession, and we can avoid recession here because of the strength of the economy and the budget that was presided over, over nine years, from the Coalition government. And if Labor stuffs that up, then families will pay the price. I really worry about that because instinctively they make the wrong decisions when it comes to managing the budget and that’s a problem.
QUESTION:
Just on Optus, Labor’s continuing with the review of the Privacy Act, which was started under the Morrison Government. What changes do you think need to be made to the Privacy Act to ensure what’s happened with Optus can’t happen again? Optus was opposed to any changes to the Privacy Act at the time. And do you think Australians should have the so-called right to be erased where they can ask companies to delete their personal data?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, as I said before, I think because we’re now living in a different age, I think it requires a different conversation. I would be very happy to look at any sensible suggestions that are being put forward. Sarah Henderson obviously, and others within the Coalition have been pushing this down the road as quickly and as productively as they can, and the government needs to respond, understand the lessons of Optus and to make sure that it doesn’t happen again. People will be worried about what’s happening with their bank accounts and their privacy online otherwise. Part of the difficulty here, of course, is it’s not just Australian companies that we’re dealing with. It’s Chinese companies, companies out of Eastern Europe and elsewhere, that we’re just willfully signing up to or downloading the apps. We’re living our lives on there without the adequate privacy protections, and I would be very happy to consider any sensible suggestions to protect, particularly children, online; but adults otherwise who otherwise are going to find themselves in a very difficult position, and I just hope that that’s not the case for these Optus customers.
Thank you.
[ends]