Transcript - Sky News Panel with Jason Falinski

E&OE TRANSCRIPT
NEWSDAY
SKY NEWS
THURSDAY, 28 NOVEMBER 2019 

SUBJECTS: Angus Taylor scandal, an Australian republic, free childcare and China.

TOM CONNELL, HOST: Joining me now if he stops talking. Patrick Gorman and Jason Falinski, here in the studio.

JASON FALINSKI, LIBERAL MP: What - if he doesn't stop talking you'll eject him?  

HOST: Well, yeah that's true.

FALINSKI: You are a half man.

PATRICK GORMAN, LABOR MP: Now what you have to do to get kicked off Sky? Sounds like a challenge.

FALINSKI: Judging by the quality of some of the presenters - a lot

HOST: We don’t have language restrictions on Sky - but we do on this program. So behave. Now Angus - is he well done or still rare at the moment?

FALINSKI: Sorry, what do you mean?

HOST: It’s a beef joke.

FALINSKI: Oh it’s a beef joke - oh okay. So you've lost all your vegan viewers at this point. You understand?

HOST: Probably.

FALINSKI: You don't seem that concerned.

HOST: We'll be okay.

FALINSKI: No, look I think, Angus as you know, New South Wales Police are going to conduct an investigation. So far there's absolutely nothing to suggest that he should stand down or he's done anything wrong. I don't quite know why Labor has dedicated so much time so many questions and so many resources to this ludicrous … it's not even a witch hunt. I don't know what it is.

HOST: Would you sign something that had various figures in it without checking?

FALINSKI: Me? Personally? Well you know I probably have but I think the answer to your question is if we attack Labor’s

HOST: So that’s your standard, you just put your signature on something without checking if it's accurate?

FALINSKI: Well I think you would trust it to be accurate, depending on where it’s coming from. And if you've downloaded it from the City of Sydney's website, you would trust those figures to be correct. However, I think if we take your proposition on its face, what you’re suggesting is that Angus or someone on his team downloaded a document, changed it and then sent it back to the author. This makes no sense.

HOST: If a voter comes up to you and says ‘sum up what what's going on here - what's the crime?’ What is the crime?

GORMAN: The minister - and I think, you know, it's nice to call him Angus, but he is a Minister of the Crown - he sent a document to the Daily Telegraph saying there has been this ridiculous spend on travel. It was clearly wrong. He took no steps to figure out whether the figures he was using on his ministerial letterhead were accurate. That to me suggests a far sloppier operation across his entire ministerial office. How does that happen?

FALINSKI: But hang on Tom, I mean, I don’t agree with you, but when did we make sloppiness a crime?

GORMAN: Well I'd expect a little better from a minister of the Government.

FALINSKI: And so you can ask those questions, but Mark Dreyfus is claiming this is a crime. How is it a crime?

HOST: If it's been doctored, it is. If Angus Taylor is accurate that it was downloaded off the website, it's not. Would you agree with that? Is that where we're at.

GORMAN: What the City of Sydney has said is that the document that was sent to them was never on their website. And this is why we do need an investigation.

HOST: But that's the part in the hands of the police. There is an investigation. So will you wait and whatever that comes up with …

GORMAN: While there's an investigation being undertaken though the appropriate thing would be to stand the minister aside. This is serious. This isn't something  Labor initiated.

FALINSKI: This is something Labor initiated.

GORMAN: No, it came about because Minister Taylor wrote a letter, dropped it to  the Daily Telegraph. It was clearly based on incorrect information. I mean, we did not make him do that.

HOST: But the investigation has been instigated by the Labor Party and that's what Mick Fuller said that the Mark Dreyfus letter did trigger the investigation.

FALINSKI: And also said, by the way, that this is a waste of our … well he didn't go that far but these things do take our time and resources.

GORMAN: Might want to be careful about quoting …

FALINSKI: I don’t know - can we go to the transcripts. This week’s not the week to put words in people’s mouths.

HOST: Speaking of transcripts.

FALINSKI: Oh no.

HOST: Should we get the Prime Minister's transcript with Mick Fuller (and) clear up what was said.

FALINSKI: Why? Mick Fuller has come out and said …

HOST: Why not?

FALINSKI: But why?

HOST: Transparency.

FALINSKI: thought you guys were also in favour of privacy and that people should be able to have private conversations.

GORMAN: Haven’t you seen the Right to Know campaign, Jason? I think it is clear which side they’re on.

FALINSKI: That’s right. They want to look in everyone's nooks and crannies and see …

HOST: But this is a conversation that is now the subject of a lot of conjecture. Was there any implication …

FALINSKI: Conjecture from who? Or from whom? Which one is it?

HOST: Whom, I think.

FALINSKI: Yeah, it’s whom. As you were saying?

HOST: Well what's the harm in releasing it?

FALINSKI: Well quite a lot because public officials should be allowed to have dialogue without thinking that well this will become public that changes the manner and form in which …

HOST: But both men are saying this is a completely aboveboard conversation and there is basically nothing really.

FALINSKI: What more do you want to know? The Prime Minister and the Police Commissioner of New South Wales have told us …

HOST: But we can judge that for ourselves if we see the transcripts.

FALINSKI: So whose word are we going to take?

HOST: I don't take anyone's word

FALINSKI: Not even mine? That's hurtful Tom.

HOST: But what's the harm in releasing the transcript?

FALINSKI: Quite a lot because a public official should be allowed to conduct discussions and make decisions in private.

HOST: And so they know if they get the next call from the Prime Minister, they can say what they want.

FALINSKI: No of course they don't say that. That's absurd. You've now taken this from all because you won't release the transcript the Commissioner of Police in New South Wales is not telling the truth.

HOST: But aren’t there some conversations you would assume are private and others you assume could be if I lied or made public and wouldn't this be in the public …

FALINSKI: Unless they are in public, no. I assume that they are private within reason.

HOST:  Is that fair enough?

GORMAN: This isn't a conversation between the Prime Minister and one of his ministers. It's not a conversation between the Prime Minister and the CEO of a private company. This is a conversation between the Prime Minister and the Commissioner of the New South Wales Police Force, where there are serious questions about why he took that course of action whether that was appropriate. We don't know what was in it. You don't know what was in it. So you're saying it’s fine. It was a perfectly above-board conversation.

FALINSKI: No I'm not saying that - the Police Commissioner of New South Wales is saying that

GORMAN: I think is reasonable that the Parliament ...

HOST: I do want to move on but …

FALINSKI: Oh really? So we're not going to talk about Mark Dreyfus, nine referrals, none of which have come up to anything that have taken up law enforcement’s time over and over …

HOST: Using the context of that. If there is no charge laid, will Labor say fair enough and move on?

GORMAN: Well I think we want … it is clear that there's not enough information about what actually happened that caused the minister to write this letter.

HOST: That's a pretty direct question. You’ll move on?

GORMAN: Well we’ve said there is an investigation underway, let's not prejudge.

HOST: I'm not prejudging …

FALINSKI: You want the Minister to stand down but you don’t want to prejudge the investigation.

GORMAN: As is appropriate while an investigation is on and even

HOST: If that investigation says no charges, Labor will move on?

GORMAN: Look I think there are real questions. This is one way of looking at the potential criminal aspect of this.

HOST: So you won’t move on?

GORMAN: There is also a concern about how the Parliament has been treated by the Prime Minister.

FALINSKI: What would satisfy Labor?

GORMAN: Well we've been asking all this week for a debate on these matters. We have been asking for the Prime Minister to apologise for some of his unfortunate errors this week.

HOST: There’s been plenty of debate and words on the matters, haven't there?

GORMAN: Well there’s not been debate. There's been a lot of words from our side and a lot of shutting down and …

HOST: I'm shutting this down, we’re moving on. Republic - now you skipped out on the PM's drinks …

FALINSKI: I knew you were going to bring this up

HOST: … to go and have a drink with Malcolm Turnbull instead?

FALINSKI: That's not what happened. There was a dinner for the Republic. Viva La Australia! And I went to that and it was a long standing arrangement and I was very glad I went. I heard some very interesting speeches with some interest …

HOST? Where's it going under your Government?

FALINSKI: Under my Government? Well, under the Government look I think it's probably at this point in time there are issues that are of a higher priority.

HOST: That's not the case. That's not a priority at all.

FALINSKI: No I don't think it's there.

HOST: Then what - there could be a republic under Scott Morrison?

FALINSKI:  wouldn't put money on it but yeah there could be. Anything's possible, Tom.

HOST: Anything’s possible there you go. I don’t know what to ask you.

GORMAN: I’m getting ready to vote in Scott Morrison's referendum to make the republic …

HOST: Can we put that headline in in our four o'clock new: “Falinski: Anything's possible on a republic.”

FALINSKI: Tom …

GORMAN: It's a pretty loose Government.

HOST: Any comment on that?

GORMAN: I think …

FALINSKI: Why don’t you, like Graham Norton, actually serve alcohol for the…

GORMAN: I was about to pay you a compliment.

FALINSKI: I'm sorry – shhh Tom.

GORMAN: I’d like to thank Jason for his work on the republic. I think it would probably … in the choice of these things, you could always be somewhere else in this building or when you're in Canberra. I didn't attend the event but hear was loved by all that went. The former Prime Minister Turnbull spoke very well …

FALINSKI: He did.

GORMAN: … and it's important we keep advocacy on the republic and Jason does a good job of that and more on his side should do so as well.

FALINSKI: There you go, Tom.

HOST: Alright, child care in public schools you want to talk about. So is this just an idea? Do we know it would work? What’s the issue we’re addressing?

GORMAN: The issue we're addressing is changing our childcare system from being focused around getting parents back into work to being focused around the educational needs of children. We know that brain development happens in the first thousand days of a child's life - that's 90 per cent of their brain development happens then. Not their learning, but their brain development. If we invest then, the rewards are huge for our economy. They’re huge for our society. I know and everyone this place knows that childcare is too expensive for many working families. It's gone up 28 per cent under this Government. 28 per cent increase in childcare costs, and as long as you have rent being the large cost driver in the childcare system, we're going to have a problem. So I'm interested in making our childcare system more like schools

HOST: Is there space? A lot of the public schools look sort of jammed full with ovals disappearing under portable classrooms and so on. Sounds like a good idea, but is there space for this?

GORMAN: Well I think you will find in every State and territory, the largest land owner is the Government.

HOST: All right. Do you think this is an area there could be still more Government - whether it be funds or other solutions - put into it because I know there's been focus and more money put in but when it when you start doing the maths on the cost it’s exorbitant

FALINSKI: It is very expensive. But Pat's absolutely right. I mean the first three years are critical to child development. Yesterday, I had a neuroscientist in for Science Meets Parliament and she was making the point that the last trimester and the first 90 days are absolutely critical for brain development and how everything connects, which has public policy implications around parental leave and should we actually insist mothers take off the last three months of their pregnancy, so that so that you know they are calm and relaxed as they're bearing their child. Not that I've seen many

HOST: What, make them take leave in the last three months?

FALINSKI: Well give them the option - absolutely. I'm a Liberal I don't believe in making people do this.

HOST: But what? Extending paid leave?

FALINSKI: These are things because the implications as Pat says, if we don't get this right in the first thousand days and, according to the neuroscientists, last trimester, the implications are that over their lifetime you know in terms of cost to the community are huge.

HOST: And the big thing here is a lot of people agree on that and choice is great. And that should be I think you know father or mother and that's the problem we've still got that. There’s a cultural thing about fathers taking leave off.

FALINSKI: Well once the child is born. Yeah but one of the things we do know especially for women before they enter puberty, relationships with their fathers or a father figure are incredibly important for their developmental milestones later in life as well, and for men it seems to be between the sort of two and seven year old when they're learning to wrestle in particularly with their fathers and they learn that it's possible to express themselves physically without actually hurting people. So wrestling is a key part of that. So yeah, there's all this stuff is going on that we didn't know about and I think the implications for public policy, as Pat pointed out and you too Tom, are just extraordinary and how we get how we grapple with that will be very hard.

HOST: And it might need a lot - ultimately the problem is all of these things need money in some way. Business already has an impulse. They're slowly factoring in but they can't pick up the entire tab for these sorts of leave. What do you think?

GORMAN: I think this is actually about a public good. We have free public education primary and secondary in this country because we believe as a country it is good for our general population and whoever you are you somehow benefit from living in a well-educated society. What we just are learning more and more is that the earlier we invest in that education the more return we get.

HOST: Well we’ve landed into a sensible policy discussion. Not sure where to go with it.

FALINSKI: See if you had a bottle of wine here, maybe you know we could go to that.

HOST: There's one out there.

GORMAN: Maybe next week.

HOST: Just finally, I do want to ask you Jason Falinski about China. Julie Bishop has said today it's not racist to target Gladys Liu over any connections she might have with United Front be it donors be it groups.

GORMAN: Julie Bishop had a lot of donor relationships that are in the current climate would be seen as questionable.

FALINSKI: Well you'll have to tell Tom about those.

GORMAN: I’ll send Tom the …

FALINSKI: You weren't here last term when Matt Keogh stood up and asked this cracker of a question of Julie Bishop about some Chinese donor had set up the World's Greatest Leadership

GORMAN: The Julie Bishop Glorious Foundation.

FALINSKI: That’s the one - I thought it was very funny.

HOST: You just talk amongst yourselves. Any reaction to what she said about Gladys Liu? Because it seems the Government are saying, well we've got to watch out for this foreign influence but are seemingly extending that to Gladys Liu in the seat Chisholm that China reportedly wanted to take.

FALINSKI: Well allegedly but I think the key issue here is that none of us … that everyone is subject to the law. The point that the Prime Minister has made and that I’ll make is that no one should be suspected just because of their background

HOST: It's not of their culture she said she wasn't a part of the United Front connected groups then she said I actually I was. That's not their background – they’re facts.

FALINSKI: And indeed the media, Andrew Bolt, a whole bunch of people have had a look at those connections and questioned her about that. And no one's objected to that.

HOST: She did a self-audit. You two …

FALINSKI: You're very distracted I can tell.

HOST: I've got to wrap as they say in TV terminology.

FALINSKI: Is this a hard …

HOST: It's a hard hit. She did a self-audit. You two can do a self-assessment on how you've gone today.

FALINSKI: Oh thank you.

HOST: We’ll talk soon. Jason Falinski and Patrick Gorman.

BOTH: Thanks.

.