Michael Sukkar MP

Interview with Andrew Clennell – Sky News Sunday Agenda

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

TRANSCRIPT

INTERVIEW WITH ANDREW CLENNELL – SKY NEWS SUNDAY AGENDA

Sunday, 6 August 2023

TOPICS: Meg O’Neill, ABC integrity, The Voice, Garma, IR Changes, Robodebt

E&OE

Andrew Clennell: Joining me now is the shadow minister for Housing and Social Services, Michael Sukkar. Thanks for your time. Michael Sukkar, let me start with this attack on Woodside chief executive Meg O’Neill’s home. And it seems to have come as part of a Four Corners program relating to climate activists. We’ve aired this morning this exclusive photo of the Four Corners crew on her driveway, which Woodside felt compelled to send to the ABC. What do you make of all this?

Michael Sukkar: Well, I think it seems like a very shameful episode in the history of the ABC, Andrew. And I think the response we’ve had from the ABC to date is wholly inadequate. Four Corners, we know, has sailed close to the wind, particularly in recent times with integrity. And the reality is, Andrew, whether you’re a CEO, whether you’re a private citizen, your home is sacrosanct and to think that our national broadcaster was aware of people who were going to allegedly break the law and invade somebody’s private residence and to some degree have participated in that, I think is an absolute disgrace and as the shadow minister for Communications, David Coleman, made the point in Parliament during the week, who’s going to lose their job over this? Because this is utterly unacceptable. Doesn’t matter what your politics is. Doesn’t matter what your view on any issue is. I think the vast majority of Australians would agree that your home where your family lives is out of bounds to this sort of stuff. And it is so far below the ABC that it’s remarkable that we even need to be calling on them to act. They should be doing so off their own volition.

Andrew Clennell: So there argument is they got told – I guess they were covering climate activists – They got told an address. They didn’t know whose address it was. They claim that they didn’t know it was residential. Frankly, it seems pretty obviously residential. And once they got there, the police were already there. So it had got to that point a protester I think it was trying to barricade themselves in the house. Do you do you buy any of that story? Do you accept any of that?

Michael Sukkar: Oh, look, it doesn’t really pass the pub test. It’s seems pretty remarkable that they were very keen to deploy a team to this very innocuous protest in a suburban area. And now they are claiming that they knew very little. But I suspect a lot more questions will need to be asked and answered here and if the ABC is not going to come forward voluntarily with a a set of facts that I think are believable will need to exhaust all opportunities through the Parliament, Senate estimates, and others. But let’s be frank, the Minister, the Communications Minister in Anthony Albanese, government should be demanding answers. He should be satisfying the Australian people because the actions of our national broadcaster to some extent reflect on all Australians. It’s the national broadcaster and for it to be engaging in this sort of grubby, grubby media, I think actions and cavorting with radical extremist protesters who would go to the point of invading somebody’s private home, I think is a real worry for all Australians. And you know, what’s the Labor Government doing about it? They need to get answers and they need to provide them to Parliament of the Australian people.

Andrew Clennell: Just briefly on something you said earlier, you said Four Corners had previously had integrity issues. What were you referring to there?

Michael Sukkar: Well, I talking about a whole lot of recent, very one-sided programs from Four Corners. Four Corners let’s be frank, only attack the Coalition politically. They are very much working closely I think we now see with radical extreme left wing protesters, I don’t think anybody would say that the Four Corners has been even handed politically in recent times. And we see an example of this today – this recent episode, which is working, it seems, because they haven’t provided serious answers working hand in glove with extreme radical protesters of the left, which seems to be well within character for Four Corners.

Andrew Clennell: Just briefly, I want to move on to other issues, but the managing director of the ABC has revealed David Anderson, he issued a statement of regret but not apology to Meg O’Neill. What do you make of that? Does she deserve an apology?

Michael Sukkar: He should apologise. Apologise. I mean seriously, apologise. You know, every large organization gets it wrong. I hate to say it. The ABC gets it wrong more often than most other organisations. And the head of those organizations needs to apologise. Be earnest, be sincere and apologise. And more importantly than the apology – explain what you are putting in place to make sure this doesn’t happen again.

Andrew Clennell: Alright, now let me ask you about the Prime Minister’s visit to Garma. He says that he isn’t listening to Peter Dutton’s request for constitutional recognition by referendum and a separate legislative voice, because that is not what Aboriginal people ask for. Isn’t that a fair point? If that’s what the Uluru Statement from the Heart wants is constitutional recognition of a voice.

Michael Sukkar: Well the Prime Minister has different positions depending on where he is, Andrew When he’s at Garma is for a treaty and for compensation and reparations. When he’s on radio, it’s a modest request. I mean, which is it? We’ve got footage of the Prime Minister saying repeatedly when speaking to ordinary Australians, whether they on TV or radio, this is a modest request. Then we see footage of him saying that this is ambitious and this is going to have significant change Australian politics, which one is it? We see it on multiple occasions, more than 30 occasions he says he’s in favor of the formal statement in full, which includes treaty, and yet he’s spent all week in a cringeworthy fashion human his minister in Parliament trying to wriggle out of claiming that he is supporting a treaty. Well, let’s be frank here. This voice is the first step towards a treaty and there are people like Thomas Mayo who’s very senior in the Yes campaign, who have said that this is ultimately about compensation and reparations. I think, Andrew comes down to the credibility of the prime minister, his trustworthiness. You can’t say one thing in one part of Australia and another thing in another part of Australia and think that you’re going to be seen as a good faith actor and have credibility on these issues.

Andrew Clennell: All right, but can the Opposition be accused of employing wedge politics here, that it has that added benefit for you? It’s about weakening the PM and the Government if this goes down and that maybe you could be accused of that being your focus more than addressing Aboriginal disadvantage? I mean, Ken Wyatt supported the voice referendum.

Michael Sukkar: Absolutely not. This has been put forward by the Prime Minister. He knew at the beginning when we were negotiating around words around executive government in the wording. He knew that if he went down this path he would not have bipartisanship because he ignored us. He didn’t have a constitutional convention. He didn’t try to bring Australians with him. He didn’t try to bring the Parliament with him. What he said on election night was he was going to do this. He saw this as his moment being about him, about his political legacy, and he’s gone forward with it. In the end, if this fails, it will be on his shoulders. He will be the single person responsible for its failure – if it fails, and he’ll have to live with not only the political consequences, but the consequences on his conscience as well.

Andrew Clennell: Nearly out of time. Just a couple of quick more. I wanted to ask about this other story I had this morning in terms of the confidentiality agreements business groups are being forced to sign in order to take part in IR talks with the government. What do you make of that? Tony Burke says the BCA is one of those business groups that’s asked for this.

Michael Sukkar: Well, look, I suspect it’s a divide and conquer strategy from the government. They’ve employed similar, similar requirements with their negotiations with the gas companies. It’s a really good way of dividing and conquering when you’ve got an agenda that they try to put forward, which let’s be frank, it’s just on the union wish list. And every Labor government, when they’re elected, they pull out the union wish list and they just tick it off one by one. This is on the union wish list. This is what the unions buy when they donate millions of dollars to the Labor Party. They’re just delivering for the unions and these sorts of agreements it seems in this instance, are just being used to be able to give the government cover while they divide and conquer all of those groups, employers and small businesses who are drastically against these changes.

Andrew Clennell: Just finally, you’re social services spokesman, what do you make of Scott Morrison’s comments during the week that the Royal Commission – robodebt Royal Commission wasn’t fair dinkum and he described it as a public lynching?

Michael Sukkar: Well, I think, you know, my views on this have been clearly the Government’s trying to milk every bit of political advantage out of this. I don’t think anyone seriously believes that the Government’s pursuing this out of the goodness of their hearts. They’re trying to get a political advantage. They’re trying to inflict as much damage as they can. And, you know, the former prime minister is entitled to his view. I think what we want to see from the government is rather than just focusing on the voice or trying to wound the former prime minister, that they focus on the cost of living pressures that Australians will be dealing with today when they’re sitting around the kitchen table not knowing how to pay the bills, particularly when the Prime Minister made huge promises before the election. Cheaper electricity, cheaper mortgages. He’s delivered none of those and seemingly wants to talk about everything other than those bread and butter issues that Australians are thinking about in their own lives.

Andrew Clennell: Michael Sukkar, thanks so much for your time this morning.

Michael Sukkar: Good on you, Andrew.

Ends