Transcript with Madonna King
Craig Emerson
posted Thursday, 29 July 2010
KING: From this leak against Julia Gillard to claims of pork-barrelling across Queensland. Let's go inside Canberra now. Senator George Brandis, good morning.
BRANDIS: Good morning, Madonna. It's nice to be back.
KING: Welcome back to Brisbane. You've been on the campaign trail, and we'll get to that.
BRANDIS: Indeed.
KING: And Dr Craig Emerson. What part of the country are we talking to you in this morning?
EMERSON: A chilly Melbourne. It is a sparkling day. Or should I say a sparkling hour until the weather changes. And I wish I was back in the relative warmth of Brisbane.
KING: And that's what you've got to say when you go to Melbourne, a sparkling hour, don't you? Because it can change by the hour.
EMERSON: Pretty much.
KING: Look can we…
EMERSON: I think Crowded House had a song called Four Seasons in One Day. And my deep suspicion is that it was written about Melbourne. But then again, Melbourne has other wonderful attractions.
KING: Alright. Look, can we start first with this leak that Laurie Oakes had last night and Peter Hartcher this morning. And before discussing the topic of the leak, a lot of people have called in and said how does a leak work? It's anonymous. It doesn't have someone's name on it. Craig Emerson, just explain to me how a leak on your side, the other side, any side works.
EMERSON: It very much, I suppose, depends where it comes from. Sometimes there are departmental leaks, as we found in the cold heart light of the day, with that Godwin Grech Utegate affair. I remember scratching my head, wondering how that information could have come into the possession of Laurie Oakes and I think The Australian newspaper.
And it turned out it had actually come from the public service. And you know, it could come from the political arena. It could come from the public service and then…
KING: Is it usually someone with a vested interest? Or is it sometimes someone who sees something that they think is wrong and they want to put it in the public arena?
EMERSON: Look, there's all sorts of motivations, I think. And I remember talking to someone associated with the Department of Foreign Affairs many years ago. And they tracked down some sources of leaks from the department. And this is - I'm not - I've not got this absolutely accurate in my mind. But it illustrates the point that the people who did do the leaking were not the ones who were suspected of doing the leaking, and the motivations were very different from…
KING: Yes.
EMERSON: those who were inquiring into how the leaks occurred.
KING: And…
EMERSON: I remember someone impressing that upon me. It's often not the people, you know, from that department who…
KING: Alright, but…
EMERSON: were suspected, but someone else.
KING: Some of the big leaks, I mean, Laurie Oakes was actually leaked the budget one year, many, many years ago, wasn't he?
EMERSON: Yes, that was…
KING: The Fitzgerald Inquiry came out of a leak. I think the Queensland health debacle came out of a leak. And these are people, in cases like that, that may have, in the Fitzgerald Inquiry, probably someone who feared for their safety. Queensland Health, it may have been someone who didn't get paid but didn't want their name attached to it.
EMERSON: Yeah, look, there is whistleblower legislation. I don't know of the details in Queensland. But certainly, our government has sought to increase the transparency and the capacity of people - I'm really talking more about departmental officials here Madonna…
KING: Alright. Can I bring in…
EMERSON: That they can - yeah.
KING: George Brandis here.
EMERSON: But the idea is that, just for your listeners in departmental leaks, the idea is that, if someone - there are appropriate channels, you know. You go up the line. And if someone up the line says we're not going to let that out…
KING: Yes.
EMERSON: then there can be protections for someone who blows the whistle.
KING: Yes, okay. George Brandis, in terms of leaks and how they operate, is there anything you want to add there?
BRANDIS: Look, it rather reminds me of that joke in Yes Minister that the ship of state is the only ship that leaks from the top. The fact is I think there is a difference of…
KING: I don't want to talk about the Julia Gillard issue at the moment…
BRANDIS: No, no, no.
KING: Yes.
BRANDIS: No, I'm not about to. I think there's a difference of magnitude between a Cabinet leak and a leak from sort of somewhere in the public service because…
KING: Alright. I don't even want to go that far yet. Just to explain to people though how it works. So a politician may leak too. And neither of you will admit it, but it would not be unusual for a politician to leak something to a journalist.
BRANDIS: Well, I think some politicians do that, but they shouldn't. And certainly Cabinet Ministers shouldn't because Cabinet Ministers take an oath of secrecy. In the Labor Party, it's usually an affirmation. But…
KING: Yes.
BRANDIS: they take this oath.
KING: But people are just wanting to understand the process. So if we can do that first. So someone leaks something to a journalist. If they do that, Craig Emerson, your understanding is that the journalist then does not tell anyone where they got that information from.
EMERSON: Well, ordinarily that is the case, unless, in the exceptional situation, the leaker said I'm happy for you to report…
KING: Yes.
EMERSON: that I'm the source of the leak.
KING: They can give you a release. That's exactly right. So in a journalist, under their code of ethics and how they operate, they keep something confidential, confidential. So I guess that was…
EMERSON: Usually not totally. I remember with Peter Costello, he was very upset about a dinner that he had - and I'm not making a political point here.
KING: Oh yes, yes.
EMERSON: But he had a dinner. He kind of unloaded somewhat. He might have even been slightly loaded himself. I don't know. But the point is, there was an agreement or an understanding that that wouldn't be reported. And many, many months, if not more than years later, it was reported.
KING: Yes. And that was when someone breached something that was ‘off the record’. So journalists…
BRANDIS: Yes, well…
KING: are told something is off the record or on the record.
BRANDIS: Ordinarily, I think a politician would say this is off the record. Interestingly, journos go yeah, yeah, of course, of course. But I think if you don't say it's off the record, then the presumption is that you're on the record.
KING: Yeah, absolutely. And as a journalist, if someone says to me it's ‘off the record’, it is not for any sort of attribution or use. If it's background, you can use it, but without attribution. And if it's on the record, you put their name, title, position. You would both agree with that process, in a sense?
BRANDIS: That's the procedure, as I understand it, yes.
KING: Okay. So can I get onto - and that was just a lot of people wanting to understand how that process works this morning. Can I get onto the more political issue though? And we might start with you, Craig Emerson. Are you worried, like some of your colleagues are, that Kevin Rudd and his supporters are behind this?
EMERSON: Obviously I don't know what sources might have been involved in this story, Madonna. I note that George just said Cabinet Ministers take an oath of secrecy. I won't be able to discuss what was or wasn't said in the Cabinet room.
Chris Bowen explained why. This is true of both sides of politics in the Westminster system and I wasn't in that Cabinet meeting or those Cabinet meetings or those Cabinet committee meetings.
But I have been in meetings with Julia Gillard that don't have that Cabinet in confidence protection and I can advise your leaders - your listeners sorry - that in the discussions that I've had on Paid Parental Leave with Julia, she was a very enthusiastic supporter of it and was very keen for it to start on 1 January next year which it will.
KING: Alright. George Brandis?
BRANDIS: Well let me make a couple of points if I may and I hope you won't interrupt me Craig.First of all, good governments...
EMERSON: Don't tell the truth, and that's what happened…
BRANDIS: do not - good governments do not suffer Cabinet leaks. The Howard Government was famous for the Cabinet never leaking. So it is an absolute - absolute giveaway that a government is in a pretty - in pretty bad shape when you have Cabinet Ministers breaking their oath and leaking against each other because these leaks only happen for one reason, and that is...
KING: [Interrupts] If this is true though...
BRANDIS: to cause malicious damage.
KING: If this is true. Some listeners are saying well it may not be true.
BRANDIS: Let me make the second point I want to make please Madonna and that is that it is one of the iron laws of politics that an allegation not specifically denied is taken to be admitted.
Now it is not a breach of Cabinet secrecy to deny a false allegation.
KING: Would you agree with that Craig Emerson: that you could deny this happened in Cabinet and settle it there and that wouldn't breach Cabinet confidentiality?
EMERSON: Not at all. And I've heard George say many times we do not discuss publicly what happens in Shadow Cabinet meetings...
BRANDIS: [Interrupts] We don't. We don't.
EMERSON: Indeed. Indeed...
BRANDIS: But you're missing my point, Craig.
EMERSON: You're missing my point.
KING: So that I'm fair here George Brandis; so if this revolves around something that happened in Shadow Cabinet and it was revealed in this way and you came on and I said did that happen, would you deny it and not be in breach of...
BRANDIS: Well that's not the question that's being asked here. The question is whether or not Laurie Oakes' report is false.
Now you can - you can deny a false report without disclosing the discussions in Cabinet or Shadow Cabinet, and that's my point Madonna. And that is what through every kind of strangulated verbal gymnastic, is possible.
I heard Chris Bowen do everything but deny that the story was true and the Labor Party is trying to create this false illusion that they can't deny this because it would be a breach of Cabinet principles.
Not so. You can always deny a false report...
KING: [Interrupts] Alright you've made that point...
BRANDIS: and they won't, so it must be taken to be true.
KING: You've made that point. A very short right of reply there Craig Emerson?
EMERSON: Absolutely wrong. And I illustrate it again by George when he was asked did Tony Abbott in the party room say ‘we are headed for a famous victory’? And George Brandis said ‘I do not discuss what happens in the party room.’
He could have said that was never said: that Tony Abbott never made that statement. He could have denied it; he never did deny it and he evoked that same principle that he does not divulge what happens in confidential meetings.
KING: Alright. Julia Gillard is expected to respond to this shortly so we might hear what the person herself says about it.
Can I just quickly move on to a couple of issues; I know George Brandis is on a tight schedule this morning.
The Audit Office: these regional partnership schemes and Dr Emerson the Australian National Audit Office has found that the Government failed to follow its own guidelines in dishing out money to local councils, did not issue clear criteria about how they'd be assessed and the outcome really heavily favoured Labor.
For example, projects in Coalition held seats were twice as likely to miss out on funding. The ALP held 55 per cent of seats but projects in those electorates received 57 per cent of funding.
That's not fair is it?
EMERSON: I think the last statistic summarises it doesn't it Madonna? Fifty-seven per cent of funding went to 55 per cent of the seats? So if the argument is whether it should have been 56 per cent or 55 per cent of funding that went to 55 per cent of the seats, I think we're really talking about a very small differential here [indistinct]...
KING: [Interrupts] Well 43 per cent of the total - 43 per cent of the total - Coalition held seats are 43 per cent; they only got 37 per cent of the funding. The Independents - got a share of that. Maybe it was a substantial share, but all I can say if the argument is that Labor seats were disproportionately advantaged through this, then I think the fact that 57 per cent of the funding went to Labor seats which constitute 55 per cent of the parliament...
KING: [Interrupts] Alright...
EMERSON: shows that that's not really a valid - there's a…
KING: So did the Audit Office get this wrong because the Audit Office has said you failed to follow your own guidelines?
EMERSON: I'm not criticising the Audit Office like the previous Government did in 2007 when there was a very damning report about what became as the Regional Rorts Program. And the Deputy Prime Minister of the day, Mark Vaile, criticised and condemned the Audit Office for political involvement in the election campaign.
I'm not saying that; I'm simply pointing out that 57 per cent of the funding went to 55 per cent of the seats...
KING: Alright. George Brandis?
BRANDIS: There's a much more revealing statistic though that you haven't mentioned Craig and that is the Audit Office Report showed that applications from Labor seats were two and a half times more likely to succeed than applications from Coalition seats.
Only 18 per cent of applications from Coalition seats were approved but 42 per cent of applications from Labor seats were approved. That's a huge disparity.
KING: Yes, but the Coalition is not clean here because the same accusation was made against your Government in 2007, if I remember correctly.
BRANDIS: Not quite. Because the program that was then under criticism was specifically a regional program. So the applicants had to be from regional areas of the country and, of course, most regional electorates in the country are in the hands of the National Party or the Liberal Party.
KING: Alright. Can I move onto this and let me first ask you this question, do you answer your own office emails or does a staffer do that?
BRANDIS: It all depends on what they are. I see them all.
KING: Alright. Craig Emerson?
EMERSON: The same answer. Sometimes we get emails that are written by, or drafted by, one person and then sent by 50 or 80 or 100 people.
KING: Alright. Can I ask you about this one then? This is one from a Federal Minister. He is the Minster for Veteran's Affairs and Defence Personnel, his name is Alan Griffin as you know, and this is an email he sent someone.
It says “dear constituent - I'll take out that person's name - you're obviously a really bright bloke. You refer to this as being circulated to all ADF personnel and then have forgot to attach it.
“It's a bit hard to respond if you're too dumb to enclose what you're concerned about. Try again if you want a response. Better still, after you send the attachment, have the guts to provide your contact details beyond an anonymous email and I'll discuss whatever the issue is that you wish to discuss if you've got the guts.” Signed, Alan Griffin.
Now he's confirmed this morning, or his office has confirmed, he did author that email. A bit intemperate or do you actually support the idea that he's answering his own emails? George Brandis?
BRANDIS: Well it's extremely rude. I mean it's completely unacceptable for a politician, and in particular in this case a Minister in the Labor Government, to treat a constituent with the obvious contempt that this Minister showed for that particular constituent.
KING: But he may have been goaded. It was a fiery email exchange.
BRANDIS: It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. In politics you often receive you know pretty vigorous criticism and sometimes you know a good deal of insult in various communications; in emails, in letters and so on. It goes with the territory. It is unforgivable.
But I'm sorry to say that it's you know of a piece with so much of the conduct of this Federal Labor Government.
KING: That's a fairly broad sweep.
BRANDIS: It is of a piece. I mean you know the fact that, for example, in this undenied report Julia Gillard said we shouldn't put up the age pension because older people don't vote Labor. I mean, really, there is a contempt for the public on the part of this Government which has become something of a theme.
KING: Craig Emerson, a response there and also on the issue of Alan Griffin. I mean do you...?
EMERSON: Yeah, sure I'll come to that.
KING: Yeah.
EMERSON: I'll come to that.
But what George is complaining about is the fact that we increased the single age pension by $30, the only time it's ever had [indistinct]...
BRANDIS: That's not what I'm complaining about at all Craig and you know that.
KING: But it is, it is a point though George Brandis...
BRANDIS: Well...
EMERSON: Julia Gillard, Julia Gillard...
BRANDIS: [Interrupting] Sorry that question was directed to me was it Madonna?
KING: I just said that is a point.
BRANDIS: Well but it's only half the truth, because what Craig didn't tell you is that the Government resisted doing that until after the Coalition moved a motion in the Senate which was passed in the Senate over Labor Party opposition demanding the increase.
KING: Alright. Can I let Craig Emerson...
EMERSON: Do I get a go now?
KING: have a response there, yes.
EMERSON: Do I get a go on that? Yes.
George you were part of a Government for 12 years that could have done that, but didn't. As soon as you went into Opposition you came up with the bright idea that there should be a discretionary increase in the aged pension which we did and which you, and your Coalition Ministerial colleagues, refused to do for 12 years in Government.
KING: Alright. But now can I get you to come back to this email, are you disappointed that a Ministerial colleague would send an email like that, Craig Emerson, or have you done the same?
EMERSON: I don't respond to constituents that way. It is true that we get, and George is right, we get some incredibly provocative emails.
I've got a little file called abusive emails, and they just go in there because basically what I find that if you respond to them they'll respond in five minutes with another earful of abuse and it just goes nowhere. So, basically, I tend not to respond.
In this case, I suppose, Alan did respond because he was seeking an attachment to a document, so there was a real policy issue here.
But it's not the way that I would respond to my constituents.
KING: Alright and in fairness to Alan Griffin, he says it was a robust, well his office told me this morning it was a robust exchange as a result of the original email.
The Minister gets a few emails from individual veterans who sometimes put their views forcefully and colourfully and he went onto say that they later had a conversation and no harm was taken.
Although, I must say, the email is certainly doing the rounds this morning.
BRANDIS: I'm a little surprised to be honest, Madonna, that Craig seems so relaxed about this. Merely to say ‘well I wouldn't do it’, well I'm sure you wouldn't Craig.
But it's a serious matter. It's not something to be tossed off lightly, that you have a Minister in your Government so openly contemptuous towards a constituent.
That's not [indistinct] thing.
EMERSON: Why don't you 'fess up George and admit that you described John Howard as the ‘lying rodent’?
BRANDIS: Well that's not the...
EMERSON: Why don't you ever admit to that?
BRANDIS: Because that's not the truth.
EMERSON: Well I think that's abusive and it is the truth because other colleagues were...
BRANDIS: It's not the truth.
EMERSON: in the same room when you described him as the...
BRANDIS: Craig, Craig...
EMERSON: ’lying rodent’.
BRANDIS: Craig.
EMERSON: So let's apply the same standard to both sides of politics.
BRANDIS: Craig.
EMERSON: That's all I'm saying.
BRANDIS: We really know that this dying Government is running out of air when you've got to dredge up gossip from seven years ago.
KING: Alright. Well, can I say this you say that the Government is in the dying throes certainly the polls don't indicate that.
You've both been on the campaign trail. Just very briefly, Craig Emerson just briefly, what are you picking up?
EMERSON: I think it will be a very tough fought and closely fought campaign.
Julia Gillard has been saying that and I think the result will be very close as has been our view for a long, long time.
I think it is pointing out Madonna in the history of Australian federal elections the band of outcomes has been between 53 per cent and 47per cent.
KING: Yes, alright. Can I ask you, you've been throughout Queensland, George Brandis?
BRANDIS: I have.
KING: Just briefly.
BRANDIS: I think that the election will be very close. But I can tell you one thing for sure on the basis of what I'm picking up in Queensland and that is people are seeing through Julia Gillard fast.
Four weeks ago she said the Government has lost its way, well in the last four weeks they sure haven't found it.
KING: Still so many - three weeks to go. Is that right? Do we know how many days to go?
BRANDIS: Three and a half weeks.
KING: Three and a half weeks to go. George Brandis, thank you.
BRANDIS: Thank you.
KING: Doctor Craig Emerson thank you.
EMERSON: Thanks very much Madonna.
KING: Alright. We'll talk to you both next week when we go inside Canberra, they're both running to catch planes this morning.
You're on 612 ABC Brisbane.
Tags: ANAO, Cabinet, Craig, Emerson, Report