Michael Sukkar MP

Interview with Rafael Epstein – Melbourne Drive, ABC Radio

THE HON MICHAEL SUKKAR MP – SHADOW MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES, NDIS, HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS

TRANSCRIPT

 INTERVIEW WITH RAFAEL EPSTEIN – MELBOURNE DRIVE, ABC RADIO

Monday, 19 June 2023

TOPICS: David Van, Housing Australia Future Fund, The Voice

E&OE

Raf Epstein: Michael Sukkar joins us from Canberra. From Parliament House he is the Liberal MP for the eastern suburbs seat of Deakin and also Shadow Minister of for Housing and Homelessness. Good afternoon.

Michael Sukkar: G’Day Raf, good to be with you.

Raf Epstein: Is it cold in Canberra?

Michael Sukkar: It is cold. And I was saying off air that you’re not going to get any sympathy from me given I’m in Canberra. But I must say it’s not one degree here.

Raf Epstein: Well that’s the airports, that’s not seen as like Avalon and Essendon Airport.

Michael Sukkar: Well, I have sympathy for those anyone near Avalon or Essendon Airport. But yeah, it’s pretty it’s pretty miserable up here too, I must say.

Raf Epstein: Okay. We’re allowed to talk about the weather. I want to talk about some really serious stuff that are internal to the Labor Party before I get onto some policy issues. You’ve had David Van move to the crossbench. I don’t want to ventilate all of those issues, but I did want to ask you – Bridget McKenzie from the Nationals said over the weekend that she had heard rumours about David Van. Had you heard any rumours?

Michael Sukkar: Look, I want to be careful what I say. Given the circumstances, no, I wasn’t ever in a position to have any formal, you know, formal complaints or anything like that come to me on David Van. But I think what was very clear and again, I want to ensure that we, you know, don’t prejudice the Parliamentary Workplace Service that’s underway. But, you know, when you have multiple credible complainants with very similar accounts of what happened and, you know, in this instance, Peter Dutton immediately asked for Senator Van to meet with him, was not satisfied with the responses he received very definitively and quickly to move in from our party room. I think it was the right thing to do in the circumstances and I supported Peter in that decision because, you know, we just cannot tolerate any behavior like that. And again, when you have multiple credible complaints from people.

Raf Epstein: Is the distinction multiple? Because and I don’t want to re-prosecute these battles, Michael Sukkar, but I have to bring it up. Alan Tudge and Christian Porter, I realise different scenarios, lots of denials. They weren’t asked to leave the parliament in any way. What’s the difference in your mind between Alan Tudge and Christian Porter?

Michael Sukkar: I don’t think you can conflate the two. I mean, in those instances you’re talking about consensual relationships that were problematic for different reasons. Here you’re talking about complaints about non-consensual behavior. It’s very different. So again, and it’s like anything I mean, these are judgment calls, but when you have multiple complainants, obviously the weight of that is is is greater. And, you know, I commend Peter. Peter’s a strong leader and when he makes a decision, he makes a decision. And in this case, he didn’t prevaricate. He made a decision and removed Senator Van from the party room.

Raf Epstein: Can I read you something David Van said? Actually, David Van says because he left the party before the party could kick him out, he said this…Clearly you’re unhappy with him and you’re backing your leader. But I just wanted to put David Van’s sentiment to you that he couldn’t remain a member of the Liberal Party that tramples upon the very premise on which our justice system is predicated. He’s called his treatment a travesty of justice. Are you sympathetic to that?

Michael Sukkar: Well, I think, again, we can’t in the end and I don’t want to make any sort of judgments on the veracity of the allegations.

Raf Epstein: No, it’s the way your party dealt with it.

Michael Sukkar: And I think and I think you’re right in putting forward Senator Van’s side of the story, and he has put out a statement. But again, my strong view here is when you’ve got particularly in one case, a former colleague and former senator Amanda Stoker, that very credible accusations from multiple complainants. I think it goes to a new level, Raf. And at a certain point in time, the welfare of your other colleagues, you know, is paramount. And, you know, Senator Van maintains his innocence as he’s entitled to.

Raf Epstein: And just on Lidia Thorpe, Michael Sukkar, because I’m assuming Amanda Stoker, one of your former colleagues – she didn’t know anybody else had made any complaints about David Van. Lidia Thorpe said something in the Senate. You guys, as parliamentarians get real exemptions that no one else gets. And you can say things in the parliament you can’t say outside of it.
Did Lidia Thorpe use privilege in the way it should be used?

Michael Sukkar: Look, I think in making really serious allegations, it’s preferable that they’re not done for the first time on the floor of the House of Reps or the Senate. You know, those sort of complaints I think, are best made to the appropriate authorities or to the appropriate bodies at first instance. So, you know, I think that’s the basic rule. But, you know, again, I tend to give a lot of leeway to freedom of speech and to people expressing themselves. And we have parliamentary privilege for reasons. So, you know, I think it’s preferable that you don’t hear those allegations for the first time publicly, you know, under the protection of parliamentary privilege. That’s not really what parliamentary privilege is there for. But, you know, it’s another grey area Raf, you know it’s very hard to sort of denounce somebody or to say they absolutely got it right either.

Raf Epstein: Michael Sukkar with us, he is shadow housing minister, had a significant role in housing policy as well when the Coalition were in government. Michael Sukkar, the basic maths of the housing bill that you and the Greens opposed $500 million every year on social housing. Why would you oppose that?

Michael Sukkar: Well, that’s not exactly the basic maths. You’ve got a fund that will be $10 billion that’s borrowed and the Commonwealth will pay probably around $400 million of interest on that, plus a management fee to the Future Fund. The management fees are often at around 1%, so say every year that fund needs to churn out $500 million of profit before you’ve even got a dollar. The Future Fund would have to have a very good year before it even spat out one additional dollar from that fund. So it’s a very risky.

Raf Epstein: But don’t we need the housing?

Michael Sukkar: Which is why governments should fund those things directly. If the government wants to do so, it shouldn’t have this charade of setting up a fund just so it can get it off its budget bottom line, setting up a fund that relies on investment returns predominantly from shares. And if there’s been a good year, there’s a dividend there for housing. And if it’s a bad year, there’s no money. I mean, if the fund had been set up last year, the fund would have lost hundreds of millions of dollars because the future Fund went backwards last year. So not only would they not have been a dollar for a social housing if the Future Fund was in place last year, it would have gone backwards. And I think the basic point here, this is not some sort of grand conspiracy between me and the Greens, and we’re all singing Kumbaya now. But where I do agree with the Greens is on this basic point that if governments want to fund and have a propensity to fund social and affordable housing, they should do so directly from their budgets, not these concocted arrangements to try and get around the budget rules.

Raf Epstein: Did you guys do enough? When you were in government? The government says the proportion, the current government says the proportion of social housing has declined from 4.7% of households to 4.2% while you were in government. Doesn’t sound like a lot, but it is a lot. It’s hundreds of thousands.

Michael Sukkar: Well, that’s actually not criticism. Well, that’s not a criticism of the former government. That’s a criticism of state and territory governments who have.

Raf Epstein: But you were in power for nine years.

Michael Sukkar: No, state and territory governments have responsibility for social and affordable housing, Raf.

Raf Epstein: So none of that’s your responsibility?

Michael Sukkar: It’s really a criticism of wall to wall Labor governments. I mean, in Victoria we’ve got our housing waiting lists are longer than ever and we’ve had a long term Labor government in place. So that sounds like a criticism from the Federal Labor Government.

Raf Epstein: I’m willing to let you criticise the Labor Government, but I just want to clarify.

Michael Sukkar: But wouldn’t you agree logically that is a criticism of the state Labor government?

Raf Epstein: Well, that wasn’t my question. My question is, if the proportion of social housing went down in the nine years the Coalition were in, is any of that your responsibility?

Michael Sukkar: Well, I mean, one thing I will give the government credit for is that they are continuing to utilise the primary method by which the federal government assists in social affordable housing, social housing, predominantly the province of state and territory governments, as I think most Australians know. One area where the Commonwealth Government does help is through the National Housing Finance Investment Corporation, which I actually set up as a minister. That was my creation. It funnels grant funding to community housing providers to not only build new housing but to also support existing housing and also.

Raf Epstein: So if you claim credit, surely you’ve got to accept blame.

Michael Sukkar: No no. But the only body they’re using is the body that I created, which is the single biggest investment into social housing from a Commonwealth government. So what the basic point I’m making here is if the government has a statistic that says social housing has gone down as a proportion of total housing over ten years, that is not a criticism of the former coalition government. That’s necessarily a criticism of wall to wall Labor governments who, just like in Victoria, our housing waiting lists are longer than ever before. Daniel Andrews and the Labor Government in Victoria has a housing waiting list longer than what they inherited. So I think it’s a criticism really of the State Labor governments as much as anything.

Raf Epstein: I asked that question I think enough times. I want to get on to issues around the Voice. Michael Sukkar is with us. Shadow Housing Minister, if you have a question for him, he is one of the Liberal MPs in the in the city of Melbourne as well.
Can’t resist reading this text because it ties things together from Peter. You reckon this is cold? What about the temperature in the Senate today when the housing fund was voted down? Very icy, I would posit, which is good. The other thing that passed the Senate is the legislation that will enable the referendum to actually kick into gear presumably in October. Michael Sukker is the Shadow Housing Minister. Michael, you are part of Peter Dutton’s shadow cabinet, so you are bound to vote no. Do you think now is going to win? Going on the polls?

Michael Sukkar: Raf, I’ve given up trying to predict these things over the years. I mean we’ve supported the the enabling legislation for the vote. So, you know, we want Australians to have their say on this, but I think it’s going to be a close run thing either way.

Raf Epstein: But encouraged by the polls?

Michael Sukkar: Well, look I think it’s too early to say either way. I think really what we’re seeing at the moment is a few issues for the Yes campaign that I think are substantial issues. From my perspective, you know, particularly someone from a migrant background, I struggled with this proposal from the beginning because of the idea that we would in some way separate ourselves on the basis of how long our families had been here.
One of the things when you grow up in a migrant family like mine, my father was from Lebanon, and what was drummed into me growing up was it didn’t matter if you were at last night’s citizenship ceremony or if you can trace your family back to the first fleet.

Raf Epstein: But we have that in law, I can’t remember if you’ve got a law degree Michael Sukkar.

Michael Sukkar: Let me finish my sentence please, Raf.

Raf Epstein: Okay.

Michael Sukkar: Or indeed, trace your family back 60,000 years. It wouldn’t matter which of those you were. You were still Australian and absolutely equal in every single democratic rights. The way that you were represented in Parliament, we all get a vote and this fundamentally changes that. So from my perspective, that’s more of a philosophical objection to the idea that we would separate ourselves based on our heritage or the blood that’s flowing through our veins as opposed to being who we are as Australian citizens, irrespective of how long our families had been here.
I think there are other issues for the Yes campaign now, though, Raf, there’s a stubborn determination not to provide details.

Raf Epstein: Can I just get back to your point on on your background there. Nothing wrong with bringing up background. I think it’s an every Australian’s actually got a really interesting story. But if you’ve got a philosophical objection to The Voice, do you have a philosophical objection to Native title? I mean, 1967 we voted specifically to allow the Commonwealth to make rules in relation to Indigenous people in this country.Do you have a philosophical objection to either the Yes case in 67 or a native title?

Michael Sukkar: Well, I wasn’t born in 1967. My philosophical objection is providing different democratic rights to people based on nothing other than their heritage. And and that is keenly felt, to be frank Raf, by people whose families have not been here for generations. As mine hasn’t.
We want to feel just as equal as everybody else, irrespective of how long our families have been here. So that’s my particular point of view. And it’s not going to be everyone’s point of view who’s got a migrant background, but that’s mine. But there are other issues for the Yes campaign, stubbornly refusing to provide details to the Australian people in a sense saying vote for the referendum on the Saturday and we’ll start working on the detail on the mandate. I don’t think that’s acceptable. And finally, I think most Australians, even those of us like you and I who are cynical about politics and other things.

Raf Epstein: I’m not cynical, I’m skeptical.

Michael Sukkar: Well, probably healthy skepticism, but we would generally say Australia is a good democracy, good foundations and our foundational document, the Constitution, served us well. This would be the most radical change to our constitution. So when when the Yes campaign doesn’t want to provide that detail, I think people are quite rightly skeptical about what that would ultimately do to what is a very cohesive democracy that we have right now.

Raf Epstein: Rosie’s got a query in Mount Eliza, what is it? Yeah, what is it, Rosie?

CALLER: Oh, I just wanted to ask Michael. So could you answer the question that when he was in Deakin and the same sex marriage referendum was being held? He, I think, abstained or voted against same sex marriage. And I just wondered if he regrets that decision now because the majority of his constituents voted in favor.

Raf Epstein: Michael Sukkar?

Michael Sukkar: No, no, I don’t regret that.

Raf Epstein: Did you? What did you do? Is that was the result of the survey, Michael Sukkar What’s your position as an MP? Do you vote with the against your electorate after a vote?

Michael Sukkar: Well, in this instance it will be decided by the people. I mean, that’s what will happen. I’ll get a vote, as you will, and as Rosie will. But if it’s passed, I mean, if this vote is passed, that’s it. It’s done. It’s this is a question for the Australian people. Ultimately, there’s no sort of veto that the Parliament could provide if there was a vote.
But equally, I would like that, you know, if the no vote is successful, that people respect that decision as well.

Raf Epstein: And the position the party has. You’re sort of talk about a separation or a new separation inside Australian society. Just explain to me the Liberal Party is very happy for a voice to be local and regional and that’s the position, but not happy for the voice to be national. How is it unifying if there’s a voice at a local level but divisive, if there’s a voice at a national level?

Michael Sukkar: Well, no, that’s not the only difference. The other very major difference is we don’t believe we should alter the Constitution. So, I mean, our point is you could legislate ultimately legislate local and regional voices, but they would be subservient to the parliament, which means they would be subservient to the Democratic wishes of 26 million Australians.
Once once the voice is in the Constitution, it’s not subservient to the Parliament, it’s embedded in the Constitution. That’s the big difference, provided you’ve got anybody, whether you call it local or regional voice, if it’s legislated, it is subservient to the Parliament of the day, which in turn is elected by the Australian people.
If it’s changed by a referendum, it’s in the nation’s rule book for forever.

Raf Epstein: Can I just ask you to engage with that concept? Michael Sukkar, you’re right, of course that’s the point of a referendum, but if you came to power, say at the next election and we had all voted yes at the referendum, the voice could be one person. There’s nothing in the Constitution. I mean, I don’t think this government wants to make it one person, But the parliament has supremacy, doesn’t it? What’s there to fear from a national one? If you’re for a local one, if you can change the detail in the parliament?

Michael Sukkar: Well, from my perspective, nothing will change on my main philosophical objection. It will still be a body that’s determined, you know, whether it’s someone who’s appointed or someone who’s elected. But it will only be there to serve a certain group of Australians based on nothing other than their heritage. That’s what I object to and I think a lot of people with a migrant background think, well, no, we’re all Australian irrespective of how long our families have been here. So that doesn’t change. But it’s the body itself, its existence would not be subservient to the Parliament as you know, it would be embedded in the Constitution. Indeed, there’ll be a new chapter to the Constitution as proposed by the Government with this referendum, an entirely new chapter, which means it will be very firmly embedded in the rule book of our nation, and there’ll be no opportunity to have buyer’s regret, buyer’s remorse. Once it’s in there, it’s in there and no parliament could ever get rid of it.

Raf Epstein: I appreciate your time today. Michael Sukkar, thank you. Stay warm.

Michael Sukkar: Thanks so much, Raf, you too, take care.

Ends