Sky News AM Agenda with Kieran Gilbert

Subjects: PM's Four Corners interview, banks, jobs, John Howard.

Transcript, E&OE

14 February 2012

KIERAN GILBERT: Hello and welcome to the program. The Prime Minister is on the back foot once again this morning, largely due to her own comments last night on the ABC. Julia Gillard did not deny knowing an acceptance speech was being drafted in her office two weeks before the 2010 leadership coup.

FOUR CORNERS (CLIP): With respect, you haven't answered the question, and the question was 'did you know that people in your office two weeks before Kevin Rudd was removed as Prime Minister were preparing a speech that you …?

JULIA GILLARD: I've given you the best answer I can, which is I'm not surprised that there were people around government who were, in their own mind…

FOUR CORNERS: But did you know?

GILLARD: I did not ask for a speech to be prepared.

FOUR CORNERS: But were you aware that one was being prepared?

GILLARD: Look. I've just given the best answer I can to your question.

FOUR CORNERS: My question was just simply whether or not you knew.

GILLARD: I've heard the question and I've answered it.

FOUR CORNERS: You haven't answered the question.

GILBERT: On the program this morning, I've got the Trade Minister Craig Emerson and the Deputy Opposition Leader in the Senate, Senator George Brandis. Gentlemen, good morning to you.

CRAIG EMERSON: Good morning.

GEORGE BRANDIS: Good morning, Kieran. Good morning, Craig.

GILBERT: The irony of this, Minister Emerson, is that the Prime Minister's own comments have been the most damaging out of that report. Everything else seemed quite innocuous except the Prime Minister's own statements, which looked shifty.

EMERSON: Well, the PM was asked when she knew a speech was being drafted, if she knew and when she knew. The only significance of that question goes to any proposition as to how long any change of leadership had been planned. Now, I can tell you from first-hand experience I knew of the proposed change of leadership after seeing it on the news that night. And that is the case for the overwhelming majority of Caucus members. So, I think the basis of the proposition is 'well, was this in the planning for a long time?' What Julia said, and it's certainly been documented and it's my understanding of the situation, is that she did have a conversation with Kevin on that night and then decided to challenge.

GILBERT: On the day, yes. But the Prime Minister has repeatedly said that her decision was made when … within the day of her going into Mr Rudd's office and saying 'I want a vote'. But the fact that a speech was being drafted a couple of weeks before – at the same time the Prime Minister said she was more likely to be full-forward for the Western Bulldogs and so on – that people are questioning whether or not she was at least considering taking this course of action.

EMERSON: I think that's the reason for the proposition on the Four Corners program, but Julia has indicated before and again today that her decision to challenge for the leadership was made on that night. In fact, I must admit that I'm not a student of reading all these books, but at least some of the books and reports indicate that she had a conversation with Kevin Rudd that night, came back and then, only after that, went back to him and said she was challenging. So, when a staff member began writing a speech … I must say in my office, I wouldn't be aware of when a staff member began writing a speech. The question really centres on this issue: is when the Prime Minister made a decision to challenge for the leadership. The Prime Minister made that decision very late on the night, as reflected in the fact that neither the media nor the overwhelming majority of the Caucus had any prior indication of that.

GILBERT: Far be it for me to say the Prime Minister shouldn't accept requests to go on television programs, because obviously…

EMERSON: Yeah, well she might never appear on this program. But that's what Prime Ministers do. That's what Opposition Leaders do.

GILBERT: They do. They do. But some of your colleagues will question the judgement of acceding to this request at a time when leadership rumblings are occurring, and that Mr Rudd seems to have been played her off a break here by not going on.

EMERSON: Well, I don't know if anyone's played anyone else off a break. This was a program about Labor in government. Julia Gillard is the Prime Minister. If she's asked to talk about Labor in government, then what do you say in those circumstances? 'I'm the Prime Minister of Australia, but I am unavailable as the Prime Minister of Australia to talk about Labor in government?' If I were Kieran Gilbert, I'd say 'well why aren't you prepared to go on to a program to talk about what Labor has been doing and what Labor will continue to do, for example, for working families and to share the benefits of the mining boom?'.

GILBERT: Senator Brandis, the Prime Minister… it wasn't used in the program, but her office did release a full transcript of the interview. But this comment was not included in the Four Corners program. She did go on to say: "I take it the implication from your question, this is regarding the polling that was done around the time, that some part of the decision I made was motivated by polling. If that is the implication of your question, that's wholly untrue." She said that a couple of times in this interview, and again, as Craig has said, she made it clear – this again not a comment used – but, "I did not make the decision beforehand. On my actions I made the decision to ask Kevin Rudd for a ballot on the day that I asked him for a ballot. That's when the call was made."

BRANDIS: That's what she says. I think the saddest thing about this, Kieran, is really what Craig just said. This was a program about Labor in government. And for a whole hour we saw what this Labor Party is like in government. They are less interested in governing, and they are completely consumed in their own internal rivalries and hatreds and leadership disputes and splits. Now, I don't know who is meant to be running the country at the moment, and it's plainly not Julia Gillard and it's plainly not this government. Anybody who saw that Four Corners interview last night, and saw the Prime Minister avoid giving a straight answer to the question five times in a row, will make up their own mind about whether or not she was lying. But we know this: she gave an undertaking to Kevin Rudd that she wouldn't challenge him for the leadership. She lied about that, and did so again. She gave an undertaking to the public at the time of the 2010 election that there wouldn't be a carbon tax. She won the election because of that lie. She gave an undertaking to Andrew Wilkie about poker machine reform. Andrew Wilkie now knows that he was lied to. The problem Julia Gillard has, the problem the Labor party has, is that this Prime Minister has such form, such a track record for telling lies that nobody can believe a word she says.

GILBERT: On just one other issue before we move on to the other matters of the day: on the question about the internal polling, Craig Emerson, the Prime Minister said … didn't seem to specifically recall that internal polling in the day up to the coup. Is that … do you think that that has credibility? Because surely at a day and a moment of such import for her career that it would be something that would be etched into your brain.

EMERSON: I wouldn't think so, either. That is, when I worked in Bob Hawke's office we saw internal polling often. And it's not a matter of great moment when you see it. So, for the Prime Minister …

GILBERT: This was being shuffled around the Labor MPs to try and convince them to go with her. It wasn't a normal poll.

EMERSON: According to the program, again, I can say as a Caucus member and as a Minister, I never saw any internal polling. I never saw or heard from anyone talking about polling. Now, apparently, this was shopped around to a very large number of Caucus members. Well, they forgot about me.

BRANDIS: You were in a safe seat!

GILBERT: You weren't wavering on Mr Rudd.

EMERSON: I wasn't in a safe seat.

BRANDIS: You were in a safe seat.

GILBERT: You weren't wavering, though. I remember on the day you were backing Mr Rudd to the hilt, to the end.

EMERSON: Well, that's true. But how would they know? They're going round with internal polling, right, and they're talking to dozens and dozens of Caucus members, apparently. But no one knew, or virtually no one knew, that there was going to be a leadership challenge. And I think that has been well documented from these various reports, whether they be in books, whether they be in other chronicles. And the reason that they didn't know is because the Prime Minister made the decision that night. So it's all very well to say 'well, look, lots and lots of people saw internal polling that was being carted around the joint'. A very large number of people – the overwhelming majority, and all of those with whom I have spoken subsequently -did not know of a leadership challenge until the Prime Minister actually discussed it with Mr Rudd. And that is because there was no challenge until the Prime Minister discussed it on the second occasion with Mr Rudd, when she came back, according to reports, to say 'I am going to challenge'.

GILBERT: Senator Brandis, I think you're …

BRANDIS: Craig, look, I say this in all charity.

EMERSON: I don't need your charity, or your patronising QC comments. So, thank you very much, George. You are such a wonderfully clever guy.

BRANDIS: In all charity …

EMERSON: Yes, thank you George.

BRANDIS: … I don't think that answer really helps you. I mean, the fact that on your version this political assassination was swiftly executed in the dark of night really, I don't think, makes it any more impressive than if it was slowly executed over a period of weeks.

EMERSON: I'm simply reporting the facts.

BRANDIS: The fact is the public would like to know who is running the country while you people in the Labor Party spend all your time plotting and scheming against each other.

GILBERT: The poll today is not going to help, though, is it, off the back of yesterday's program. I do want to play a little bit of the Prime Minister this morning. She's been on the ABC. I think we've got a bit to play now.

GILLARD (CLIP): In those circumstances, of course I said yes. My job is to answer questions and to explain what the Government's doing. I'm not someone who runs away from questions, and so I did agree to the Four Corners interview.

SABRA LANE: Kevin Rudd didn't. He maintained a silence. Do you think that you were misled about the terms under which the interview was going to be done?

GILLARD: Well I've explained to you, Sabra, the terms that were put to me: that it was going to be an interview about the Government's progress since 2007 and, of course, outlooks for the future. And that's what I'm particularly focussed on: the outlooks of the Government for the nation's future.

GILBERT: So what do you make of that? The Prime Minister obviously defending her reason for going on the program in the first place. Says that it was about a larger subject area; not just the leadership.

EMERSON: Well, indeed. And that's what I said a moment ago. If you're asked onto a program to discuss the Government, what it's doing, what it's been doing before on the policy front, what it's doing now, what it will do in the future, and a Prime Minister is asked to appear on a program like that, are you seriously recommending, Kieran, that on Sky TV that if you made that request to the Prime Minister, your advice to her would be to decline the interview?

GILBERT: No, I'm not suggesting that.

EMERSON: Well, then…

GILBERT: I'm asking you.

EMERSON: I'm telling you…

GILBERT: I'm not making assertions; I'm asking you a question.

EMERSON: You are. You're saying, 'well, perhaps she shouldn't have gone on the program.'

GILBERT: I'm asking you that.

EMERSON: And I'm saying that if you made that request … if you made a request to me as Trade Minister and said 'look, you worked in the Hawke era and so on; I want to talk to you about economic reform, the ups and downs of being in government, the program for the future'. And what would I do: go, 'oh, Kieran Perkins is up to something?'

GILBERT: Kieran Perkins? Kieran Gilbert.

EMERSON: Yeah, how's the swimming going? Kieran Gilbert.

GILBERT: I'm not as good in the pool.

EMERSON: You've got broad shoulders.

GILBERT: Just quickly, and then we'll go to Senator Brandis.

EMERSON: You would be entitled to say, 'well, why won't you come and talk about the Government's achievements and its policies for the future?'

GILBERT: Okay, let's hear Senator Brandis.

BRANDIS: Look, I think the problem here, Kieran, not just for the Labor Party but for the country is that this isn't going to stop. For as long as Mr Rudd is determined on this very, very deliberate course of conduct to unsettle Julia Gillard and, if possible, remove her from the leadership of the Labor Party it's not going to stop. Kevin Rudd won't go away.

GILBERT: I do want to play just one last comment of the Prime Minister this morning explaining in a bit more detail the … her view on what transpired about the acceptance speech and so on in the days leading up to the coup. This is a little bit more of her comments this morning on the ABC.

GILLARD (CLIP): But in answer to your question, let me make two very simple points: I did not direct staff in my office to prepare a speech for me as Prime Minister. I wouldn't have seen the need for it. I decided to challenge Kevin Rudd and to ask him for a ballot in the Labor Party on the day I asked him for that ballot.

LANE: But did you know …

GILLARD: And no question … no question, no television program, nothing will ever change the facts that I made up my mind to ask Kevin Rudd for a ballot within the Labor Party, for the Labor Party leadership on the day I walked into his office.

GILBERT: Let's take a break now on AM Agenda. We'll be back shortly with Craig Emerson and Senator George Brandis.

(ADVERTISEMENT BREAK)

GILBERT: This is AM Agenda. Thank you for your company this morning. With me, the Trade Minister Craig Emerson and the Deputy Opposition Leader in the Senate, Senator George Brandis. Senator, I'll come to you first on this issue of banks and jobs. We saw ANZ cutting hundreds and hundreds of jobs. Is it too simplistic to bank-bash at this time, given that through the GFC and so on, the banks did keep people employed and tried to keep people employed, and now as they deal with weakening revenue they have to try and put themselves on a firm footing for the future. Is that a fair enough argument that's being made?

BRANDIS: Well, I understand the argument. We do need profitable banks. We have a good banking system in Australia, largely because of the very good, prudential regulation that was introduced by Peter Costello when he was Treasurer and which this Government has held on to.

EMERSON: (inaudible) …Joe Hockey…

BRANDIS: I think there is an expectation … well, Joe was the junior minister in Peter's portfolio, I think, at the time it was introduced. I think the public have a fair enough expectation that when there are movements in the cash rate that they would expect to see some relief being passed on by the banks. And I can understand why they're annoyed that when there's no movement in the cash rate, as there wasn't this time, that in fact the interest rates have gone up slightly.

GILBERT: What about the jobs? We're seeing billions and billions of dollars in profit here.

BRANDIS: There is a broader story on jobs. It is a very sorry situation that 2011 was the first year in 20 years in which there was no net jobs growth. The Government talks about all the new jobs that are being created. A lot of new jobs were created, but an equivalent number of jobs were lost. So, for the first time in 20 years there was no net jobs growth.

GILBERT: Let's bring Trade Emerson … Trade Minister Craig Emerson into the discussion.

EMERSON: Yes, Kieran Perkins.

GILBERT: I want to ask you about … well, this argument that the bank-bashing is simplistic. You're an economist; you know that the banks were largely doing their best to keep people on during the GFC. And now, obviously, a very sad situation for hundreds and hundreds of employees told … shown the door.

EMERSON: The banks and other companies and small businesses, in particular, did keep people on during the financial crisis and that was a great achievement. So in that period we didn't have big job losses. The rest of the world – certainly the rest of the developed world – did. Eleven million people lost their jobs in Europe and North America. So, I think that's a tribute to the businesses, but also, obviously, to economic policy of the Government at the time. Right now, yes, jobs are being shed. But the latest surveys confirm that I think something like 190,000 jobs are being advertised every week. So, there's obviously jobs being lost; new jobs being created. Woolworths are looking to recruit something in the order of 10,000 people. The big LNG projects are employing tens of thousands of people, so …

GILBERT: Is this fairly characterised as growing pains, within an economy restructuring?

EMERSON: I think there is a modernisation, a transformation going on. And what we're seeking to do is to shape that transformation. No one likes to see people lose their jobs. And so what we're working on is building on the situation where there are 700,000 new jobs. It's true that in this last year there was no net job creation, but an unemployment rate of 5.2 per cent compared with 81/2 per cent in the United States and 20 per cent in some European countries. That doesn't mean that we're satisfied with it, and that's why we need to modernise the economy and share the benefits of the economic growth, for example, through the mining tax.

GILBERT: I do want to touch on one last issue before we go. John Howard last night was in the Coalition Party room – a former Prime Minister, had a few words of advice to his colleagues.

JOHN HOWARD (CLIP): I keep reading this stuff about the fact that the current Opposition is too negative. So, my suspicious mind tells me that if people are, particularly on the other side, are complaining about Tony and his colleagues being too negative, that tells me that they are being very, very effective.

GILBERT: Senator Brandis, I get the sense that Tony Abbott does speak to his mentor quite a bit for political advice. Is that your sense?

BRANDIS: I don't know. I imagine they speak from time to time. Certainly John Howard is a great role model for any politician, because he had that great quality of durability through the bad years as well as the good years. But the point he made to the Liberal Party last night, I think, is right: the more the Government complains about an Opposition, the more you know that the Opposition is hitting its blows on the target.

GILBERT: There might be an argument that some of your colleagues could look to John Howard for a bit of hop, because he had some really low times. Former Prime Minister; dumped as leader in 1987; made a comeback. We might see something similar.

EMERSON: Well, it's interesting John Howard didn't practise what he now preaches. When he was in Opposition he actually supported the major economic reform programs of the Hawke Government – not without exception. But he basically thought and behaved in the national interest. Now he's saying 'I repudiate that. Tony Abbott's right, regardless of whether it's in the national interest or not. You're doing a great job as Opposition Leader if you oppose everything'. I don't think the Australian people accept that.

GILBERT: But Mr Howard was constructive over time.

BRANDIS: Craig. Let me pay you a compliment, Craig.

EMERSON: I can't hardly wait, George.

BRANDIS: When John Howard was first Opposition Leader, the Prime Minister was Bob Hawke who, in my view – and I know that view is shared by Mr Howard himself – was the best Labor Prime Minister Australia has had in living memory. We were able to agree to a number of the Hawke Government's reforms, some of which as a senior adviser you authored, Craig, because they were good ideas and they took further some of the ideas that Howard himself as the Treasurer in the Fraser Government had put on the agenda.

GILBERT: So, why don't we end on that note?

BRANDIS: The problem with the Government you are now a member of is that it is not nearly as good as the Hawke Government.

EMERSON: Congratulations to the Hawke Labor Government. And good on Mr Abbott for being Mr Negativity, saying 'no, no, no, no and no'.

GILBERT: There was a little bit of positivity there to finish with. Not total…

EMERSON: That's true.

GILBERT: I've got to say, Kieran, I think Craig is one of the better Ministers in the Government. It is not primarily his responsibility, but the Government in which he serves is such a calamity.

EMERSON: I'm being damned with faint praise here, but the fact is both Mr Howard and Mr Costello, when they were in government, exhorted Labor to support policies in the national interest. We exhort Mr Abbott to do the same.

GILBERT: We better go, and you've got to get a coffee, Craig. And Senator Brandis, appreciate your time.

EMERSON: Thanks very much.

BRANDIS: Thanks Kieran.

Media enquiries