Michael Sukkar MP

Interview with Raf Epstein – ABC Melbourne Drive

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

TRANSCRIPT

INTERVIEW WITH RAF EPSTEIN – ABC MELBOURNE DRIVE

Thursday 7 September, 2023

TOPICS: Philip Lowe, Qatar, Qantas, The Voice to Parliament

E&OE

Raf Epstein: The opposition is continuing to zero in on the government’s decision about letting airlines fly in to this country and we are five weeks or just over five weeks away from the vote on the voice referendum. Michael Sukkar is the Liberal MP for the seat of Deakin here in Melbourne. He is also shadow Minister for Housing and Homelessness – part of Peter Dutton’s opposition. Michael Sukkar, Good afternoon.

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

Raf Epstein: Do you think the media were a bit too rough on Philip Lowe?

Michael Sukkar: Oh, I’m sure there were times where they were. I think, you know, that’s probably a fair observation from him. But at the same time, you know, people I think quite rightly hang on many of the words of the Reserve Bank governor, particularly during the extraordinary time of COVID and, you know, in public life, you know, people who are relying on your statements will remind you if those statements don’t come to fruition.

Raf Epstein: Do you think he got what he deserved?

Michael Sukkar: I think it was absolutely fair criticisms at times. I think he’s done a pretty good job. I think we’re well-served by the Reserve Bank as a general rule, and the fact that it’s quite independent from government, I think is a good thing. The way that Peter Costello established that independence I think is an enduring legacy for our country. I think he did more good than bad. But, you know, clearly there were there were decisions that people took during COVID based on his explanations that didn’t come to fruition. I think he quite rightly says, well, it was a very unprecedented time and, you know, in crazy times, crazy things can happen. But, you know, you’re held accountable for what you say and I suspect that those criticisms from many people are justified in their minds. And so I think, you know, you can’t complain about it too much when people hold you to account on what you’ve said.

Raf Epstein: Very many of the questions from the opposition to the government in Question Time this week have focused on the government saying no to Qatar Airways. It took the Coalition four years to act on a request from the same airline. Isn’t demanding action now just hypocrisy?

Michael Sukkar: Well, I think we need answers. There’s been half a dozen explanations, as far as I can tell, for denying these extra flights from the assistant treasurer saying, well, we’re protecting Qantas’ profitability, to now, the intimation that it has something to do with the quite invasive and improper treatment of Australian passengers to this general and vague notion of the national interest.

Raf Epstein: Maybe it’s all those reasons.

Michael Sukkar: Well, I think that there’s a a very cozy relationship between the Government and Qantas, and I think that’s a suspicion that is very well-founded. I think there’s a very close relationship between the Prime Minister and Alan Joyce, and there’s been a lot of dodging and weaving in Parliament this week. We still have no answers of when the Prime Minister knew that the Transport Minister made this decision, who did she consult in that decision, which colleagues did it go to Cabinet? On what date even? – that the Prime Minister was informed, he was consulted

Raf Epstein: I don’t it needs to go to cabinet, does it?

Michael Sukkar: Well, ordinarily, those things go to Cabinet. That doesn’t mean everything goes to Cabinet, but we don’t have those explanations. So, I think when a government dodges and waves and tries very hard to avoid answering questions that the suspicions people have of this very cozy relationship between Anthony Albanese and Alan Joyce and potentially making a decision in the best interests of Qantas rather than the best interests of Australian travellers that those suspicions are raised and look for a lot of my constituents and I think for millions of people around this country, you know, international travel or intrastate travel, it’s not a luxury, it’s a necessity. If you’re visiting an elderly parent, you’ve you’ve got a business interstate or overseas. These are, you know, things that are absolute necessities for lots and lots of Australians. And when a government makes a decision that artificially increases the price of travel, and there’s a very close relationship between the Prime Minister and Alan Joyce, it’s right that we ask these questions and if they answer the questions then it will clear a lot up for people and the fact that they aren’t answering them I think makes us more suspicious that there’s more to this.

Raf Epstein: During Question time. I want to play something to you. Yesterday because Catherine King, who’s the minister, the Labor minister who made this decision, she was quoting your own side’s words. Back to you in Michael McCormack, the former Nationals leader, had a ministry. He made a similar decision. He was the one who took four years to make a decision. But Catherine King was basically saying, I guess she’s the one accusing you of hypocrisy in some ways. So let’s just have a listen. This is the current minister quoting the former minister yesterday in Question Time.

(Catherine King grab) Again, as the member for Riverina has said, you can’t have an airline coming in from overseas and just undercutting to the point where Australian jobs are at risk and Australian Airlines were placed. At a disadvantage. And he said you can’t have an airline. Package undercut, undercut, undercut and unable to compete with these unfair undercutting approaches. Well, there you go.

Raf Epstein: It’s not really that different to what they’re saying, is it, Michael Sukkar? Don’t governments to say the same thing about Qantas.

Michael Sukkar: Well, two things. Firstly, if that’s what Catherine King is saying, she should say it. If that’s the excuse that she’s fearful of them undercutting Qantas, then that’s the excuse. But she has so far refused to say that.

Raf Epstein: Well she’s saying you were protecting Qantas.

Michael Sukkar: Well, let me get to the second point. So that’s the first point. She’s not saying that that was the reason for her decision. Secondly, the statements that she’s reading out from the former minister Michael McCormack, were made around the COVID period when Australian airlines were on their knees when jobs were at risk. But now we’ve got a lack of capacity in the market. We’ve got fares that are 50% higher than they were pre-COVID, and it’s probably more than 50%, we don’t have those same fears. It’s a drastically different environment. We’ve now got an environment where we need more capacity in flights, we don’t need less. And so there’s no point cherry picking a quote from Michael McCormack during COVID.

Raf Epstein: It was last year, it wasn’t during Covid.

Michael Sukkar: Well, post that period when we were trying to build up the aviation industry in this country. So, look, if that’s the excuse, she should say it. But she’s refused to say that, she’s actually used six or seven excuses. Now she’s gone to the default in the national interest and she will not explain why she’s made it and she ultimately won’t explain why they are ensuring that Australians are paying more, not just for international flights, but also domestic flights based on this decision. I would just say to the Labor Party, fess up, give us the real reasons. If it’s because of a commitment that they made Qantas or a commitment that came out of Qantas providing support for the Yes campaign or whatever it might be. Just give us the reason and then we’ll understand it and Australians will make their judgment accordingly.

Raf Epstein: I want to get on to the yes and no campaign in a moment. He did say repeatedly the Government is close to Qantas. Gosh, your government is pretty close to Qantas. I mean there’s a lot of JobKeeper money that Qantas got. Not a single university lecturer got a job. The money that’s. That’s a pretty close relationship, isn’t it.

Michael Sukkar: Well, Qantas didn’t get JobKeeper money, their employees got JobKeeper money. I was the assistant Treasurer at the time, and we were very, very deliberate in the way we structured that program that that funding went to the employees, it didn’t go to the business, it went to the employees, the businesses had to pass it on through their payroll, but it was there to save Australian jobs. And I’m extraordinarily proud of the millions of jobs the JobKeeper saved and many of your listeners who will have received JobKeeper. I not for one minute will will agree with your statement that we did that on the basis that me or Josh Frydenberg, the then Treasurer, had some cozy relationship with Qantas. I’ve never met Alan Joyce, I’ve never met with senior executives from Qantas. Why did we support Qantas employees? Because they’re Australians and they deserve to have their job protected. So I don’t accept that. Whereas Anthony Albanese has a very close, in his own words, personal relationship with Alan Joyce, which is fine, nothing wrong with that. But that’s why we now need honest answers to questions about what he knew and when, and if they just answer them honestly, it might get to a point wherever everybody moves on. But the more they obfuscate, the more that they dodge and weave, I think the more suspicions are raised.

Raf Epstein: Michael Sukkar is with you. He is the shadow minister for Housing and Homelessness on behalf of the coalition. So a big part of Peter Dutton’s team, Michael, if I can go I guess to the the nub of some of the no case, I’ve been reading the AEC pamphlet, which is really helpful. 2000 words on the yes case, 2000 words on the No case. The No case has to rely on distorting Greg Craven and Megan Davis’ words and two judges who are not from the High Court. Doesn’t that suggest the no case is weak?

Michael Sukkar: Well, look, I’m not going to, I don’t have the pamphlet in front of me, so I’m not going to sit here and go through line by line with you and defend anything that the yes or no campaign has said. I think it might be inconvenient for people like Greg Craven or Megan Davis or Thomas Mayo to have statements that they’ve made in the past, come back and bite them, statements that they might have made, not thinking that anybody was watching or that anybody was recording. But, you know, when someone like Greg Craven vociferously criticises the model put forward by the government. And those quotes are not taken out of context. The quotes are provided – that’s his quote and I’m sure he supports the voice. But he was very critical of it. And repeatedly, I’ve read lots of lots of articles he’s written about.

Raf Epstein: You don’t think there’s any maybe – I’ll take you away from those direct quotes. I appreciate you don’t have the pamphlet in front of you. The majority of constitutional law experts don’t think there’s anything wrong with the voice. The majority of of high court appointees, judges who are talking about the voice, the vast majority of them. I think there’s one opposed to it. The weight of legal opinion is not with the no side.

Michael Sukkar: But I think you’re missing the point. If we don’t live in a society where only – where those elite High Court judges tell everyday Australians what it is they should or shouldn’t believe, someone like me from a migrant background. I’m voting against this because I don’t want to see different Australians treated differently or have different rights based on nothing other than their race.

Raf Epstein: I’m happy to come to that point. But for the risky nature of it…

Michael Sukkar: But for many people that’s the predominant reason.

Raf Epstein: Okay. And I’ll come to that in a moment.

Michael Sukkar: Including me. And so I don’t need a High Court judge to tell me that they’re happy with it, because guess what? In a democracy, the person who’s the person who cleans the street gets one vote just as much as the high court judge who gets one. And I think you’re falling into the trap of the Yes campaign…

Raf Epstein: Thank you for the judgment. The No campaign, a significant part of your no campaign rests on the idea that there are risks and unforeseen legal consequences.

Michael Sukkar: Well it’s not my No campaign, Raf, I happen to be a no voter, but I’m not a party.

Raf Epstein: Your leader’s a big part of the no campaign that that question though, if I could just ask you to address it. Most people who understand constitutional law and have adjudicated on it think that no campaigns got that wrong.

Michael Sukkar: Well, there are many people, including imminent KCs like Stuart Wood, who have written significantly on the huge risks it imposes. And I can tell you, I’m a former lawyer. Anyone who’s been in the law will tell you on any argument, you will find legal professionals who could argue on both sides of the argument. Indeed, you could probably find the same legal professionals depending on who their client is, could argue both sides of the same argument. So I think there is a preponderance of legal doubt out there about the voice being embedded in the Constitution. We know we know for a fact that the high court will have to adjudicate on questions that relate to the Constitution. That’s without question. And it’s very, I think, very risky to embed this in the Constitution without having the doubts that I think are being put forward by many legal professionals, now some have said, that they’re very comfortable with those risks. But no one has said that there aren’t risks. There’s just those who’ve said we think the risks are manageable or that the risks are minor. But no one and no one that understands the Constitution would say that – in the end, the High Court adjudicates on the Constitution.

Raf Epstein: You’re just stating the obvious.

Michael Sukkar: They will adjudicate on this if it passes. That’s the truth of it.

Raf Epstein: And Michael, Look, I’ve put that question to you. I’m happy to hear what people have to say about your answer. Can I come back to that point you raised of dividing – You say dividing people based on what’s in the Constitution. There’s always been a race power.

Michael Sukkar: No, no, I said dividing them based on race.

Raf Epstein: Okay. But dividing us based on….

Michael Sukkar: I think we’ve had this conversation before. You know, I’m I’ve gone through a lot of the detail. And but I did say early on and I said it publicly that for me, the detail was important for me to see, but my instinct was that on a principles basis, particularly someone from a migrant background, that I don’t think we should treat people differently based on how long their family has been here.

Raf Epstein: I’ll give you time to answer. Well, there’s always been a race power, hasn’t there? And 67 actually enabled the federal government to do some really fantastic things for First Nations people.

Michael Sukkar: I don’t think we should beef it up even further. If that’s the case, I don’t think we should treat people differently based on how long their family’s been here. Whether you’ve had a family here for one generation and whether you can trace your family back to the first fleet or indeed whether you can trace your family back 60,000 years. We are all Australians. We all must be equal before the law. We all should be equal under every law, including out the rule book of the country being the Constitution. Because I think the bedrock of our egalitarian society, I think the most decent society in the world has been that it doesn’t matter. If you were at last night’s citizenship ceremony or you’ve got family that has been here for generations. Once you’re an Australian, we are all Australian and we’re all equal. And I think this drastically and radically changes that. And for that reason it was very easy for me to fall on the no side of this argument.

Raf Epstein: Well before the vote, we’ll probably have a similar conversation on mornings. Always great to have you on the show. Michael Sukkar, Thank you.

Michael Sukkar: Thanks Raf, and congratulations on your move to the mornings. I look forward to it.

Raf Epstein: Very kind of you. Michael Sukkar as the member for Deakin, he’s the shadow minister for Housing and Homelessness, part of Peter Dutton’s team.

Ends