E&OE TRANSCRIPT
TV INTERVIEW
SKY NEWS
WEDNESDAY, 27 NOVEMBER 2019
TOM CONNELL: Joining me on the program now, the Shadow Minister to Angus Taylor, Mark Butler, here in the studio. Thank you for your time.
MARK BUTLER: Pleasure.
CONNELL: So the New South Wales Police Commissioner has said today that he acted openly and transparently, nothing inappropriate in this phone call. Do you take him at his word?
BUTLER: Well I take the police commissioner at his word but the Prime Minister has said something quite different. He said that the conversation that he had with the police commissioner, according to the Prime Minister, involved a discussion about the substance of the enquiry. What’s become clear today is that the government has finally succeeded in shifting attention off the embattled Minister for Emissions Reduction and they’ve shifted the focus to, frankly, the Prime Minister’s judgement. The idea that it was appropriate to make a call to the police commissioner after the launch of a strike force into one of his ministers is gobsmacking.
CONNELL: But putting aside, you can include the fact that he said the word substance, it was just the word, he didn’t say more detail than that, the commissioner himself said this was just information in the press release, nothing more. If he’s saying that, then Scott Morrison didn’t garner anything else, did he? Unless you’re saying the commissioner is wrong?
BUTLER: The Prime Minister is telling a different story. I believe the commissioner but I don’t understand why the Prime Minister continues to repeat in the Parliament, and background certain media outlets, that there was a much more substantive report given to him about the way in which the enquiry is being conducted.
CONNELL: But it’s just all on that word ‘substance’, you’re saying once he’s said that that changes even though the commissioner is saying, what was in the press release is what I told him, that’s it.
BUTLER: The point Malcolm Turnbull made was a good one today and that is that police investigations, particularly a strike force into a minister, not only need in a substantive sense to be conducted properly, there also needs to be a clear perception for the public that there is no political interference at all. Ordinary members of the public don’t get to ring the police commissioner and ask about an investigation into one of their mates or one of their colleagues. This really runs the risk of tainting this enquiry, it was an appalling judgement by the Prime Minister.
CONNELL: But we do have, again, from Mick Fuller, this was a reassurance that everything is fine, he said we’re not friends, I’ve never been to his house, we don’t go out to dinner, he’s not a mate and I didn’t tell him anything untoward in that phone call. So even though you say Scott Morrison said ‘substance’ we’ve got the commissioner saying, there’s no change here.
BUTLER: I take the commissioner at his word but it’s very different to what the Prime Minister has said, who has described the police commissioner, now you raise it, as one of his best friends. But also, much more importantly, gives quite a different description of the nature of the phone call yesterday.
CONNELL: Just with the word ‘substance’ he didn’t go into a description of saying he told me, this, this and this. It’s that word ‘substance’?
BUTLER: It is and it’s also some briefings to some media outlets this morning about the substance of the call. This all just goes to the point it was inappropriate to make the call in the first place. As Malcolm Turnbull said, it raises a perception that there are different rules that apply to Cabinet Ministers and members of this government than apply to ordinary members of the public who might be subject to a police investigation.
CONNELL: Labor has been talking about the code of conduct, this does say that ministers will be required to stand aside if there are charges, yes, but there’s a grey area if there are not charges. It’s if the Prime Minister regards their conduct as constituting a prima facie breach of these standards.
BUTLER: There’s also 7.1, I think you’re referring to 7.2 and 7.1 suggests that the Prime Minister during the currency of an investigation into the potential of illegal or improper conduct can stand aside a Minister. What we’ve seen over the course of this government, for example, under Prime Ministers Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull is: Mal Brough stood aside during a police investigation that concerned him, Arthur Sinodinos stood aside during an ICAC investigation, so not a police investigation, and the Minister that now sits right next to Angus Taylor in the Parliament, Sussan Ley, stood aside during a departmental investigation into travel expenses. But under this new Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, the launch of a strike-force by the police around the commission of three very serious offences, which carry gaol terms of up to 10 years, suddenly doesn’t warrant the same verdict that applied under Prime Ministers Abbott and Turnbull.
CONNELL: 7.1 does say that Ministers must accept the Prime Minister to decide in an investigation, so it’s not an automatic trigger, I accept that it’s a possibility –
BUTLER: No, we’re going to the Prime Minister’s judgement here and very recent precedents around Prime Ministers Abbott and Turnbull but other precedents that go back to Prime Ministers –
CONNELL: What about Bill Shorten not standing aside?
BUTLER: He wasn’t a Minister. This is a code of conduct that focuses on the particular responsibility and privileges of Ministers of the Crown. That is why Ministers have always been held to higher standards through the ministerial standards promulgated by the Prime Minister of the day.
CONNELL: When you talk about that standard, we did hear very clearly from the police commissioner today, his reason for the investigation, which has strike force, and I agree it sounds ominous, but this is just the level investigation, that’s all it’s at. He says it’s not far advanced, they haven’t ascertained if illegal activity has happened. He’s saying the reason there is an investigation is one, the seriousness of the allegations and two, the letter written by Mark Dreyfus. If that were the threshold, it would be very easy to make ministers stand aside, would it not?
BUTLER: Well the importance is the seriousness of the allegations. The letter was written weeks ago. Presumably, the New South Wales Police have been considering the letter that Mark Dreyfus, the Shadow Attorney-General, sent to them, considering the material contained into it, particularly the gravity of the offences that we raised. As I said, two of the offences that we raised carry jail terms of up to 10 years and a third offence carries a jail term of up to 2 years. And frankly it doesn’t matter and it shouldn’t matter where the reference is made from, whether it’s Federal Labor Party or the Sydney City Council or another concerned citizen of New South Wales. Clearly the New South Wales police have made an objective judgement that there is a prima facie case that warrants an investigation.
CONNELL: Well they haven’t made that judgment –
BUTLER: There has been an investigation that’s been launched. Plenty of times police will receive these sorts of referrals and make a decision not to initiate an investigation.
CONNELL: This appears to be more of a presumption you’re making because as I said he expressly said the reasons are the seriousness of the allegation not the veracity of the allegation and the fact that it came from Mark Dreyfus. That doesn’t say that they believe there is a prima face case, that just says they are taking it seriously because it has come from the Federal Parliament essentially?
BUTLER: The reason for Ministerial Standard 7.1 is that a Minister should stand aside to avoid any perception that they are continuing to work as an executive member of government while an investigation is underway. Particularly, frankly, a police investigation. This is as much about perception as it is substance. I accept that the police situation might end up a nought in terms of Angus Taylor’s behaviour, in which case there will be no particular sanction from that point of view. If there are charges well that’s different altogether.
That doesn’t change the fact that we still consider he deliberately misled the Parliament. There is a separate sanction for that. But so far as this investigation is concerned the purpose behind 7.1, the reason why other Ministers under this Government, different Prime Ministers but under this term of Coalition Government, have been stood aside during the currency of an investigation is as much about perception as it is substance.
CONNELL: Can’t we just wait until charges are or are not laid?
BUTLER: Why have item 7.1 in the Ministerial Standards? Why did Mal Brough, why did Sussan Ley –
CONNELL: It’s an opportunity and at that stage it depends upon whether or not it feels as if the prima face case is the keyword right? Whereas at this stage we’ve got Angus Taylor saying that it was downloaded from the internet so there was no forgery, so we’ve got a dispute as to whether there even is a crime?
BUTLER: Of course we’re not in a position yet to determine whether or not a criminal offence was committed by one person or another. It seems pretty clear that a criminal offence was committed by someone. This is clearly a forgery. There is a forged document that has been made and used to influence the exercise of a public duty. We don’t know by whom – that is a matter for the New South Wales Police.
CONNELL: We don’t know if it is forged, that’s not ironclad. You can’t be 100 per cent there could be a version somewhere?
BUTLER: The Sydney City Council have released their metadata which shows very clearly that the version of the report with the true figures has been on the website since November 2018.
CONNELL: Can you say with 100 per cent clarity that this is a forged document?
BUTLER: To the extent that it is claimed by Angus Taylor that it was downloaded from the City Council website, yes I can.
CONNELL: What if there is another version of it somewhere?
BUTLER: Well the metadata from the council confirms it. The publicly available internet archives, the Trove database from the National Library, other publicly available internet archives confirms there is no other version on the website and there hasn’t been through 2019.
CONNELL: Can you be 100 per cent certain this is a case of a forged document?
BUTLER: Why on earth would the Sydney City Council come up with a document –
CONNELL: I agree it seems strange.
BUTLER: That involves their Councillors undertaking 20 return trips to Melbourne, each of them, per week, every week for 50 years and 6 or 7 business class trips to Perth?
CONNELL: Perhaps there was a mistake made? That’s the point.
BUTLER: There is no evidence of that.
CONNELL: I understand that –
BUTLER: And Angus Taylor refuses to confirm where he got the document except to say that it was directly downloaded from the City of Sydney Council website.
CONNELL: From a staff member?
BUTLER: By someone. It is completely clear from the metadata and the internet archives that no such document was ever on their council website.
CONNELL: If it is found to be a staff member acting without the knowledge of Angus Taylor would he not be responsible?
BUTLER: Angus Taylor is responsible. Ministers are responsible for the actions of their staff. Now presumably given this matter has been around for weeks, Angus Taylor and frankly the Prime Minister’s Office have conducted absolutely no due diligence to investigate what might have happened by different staff, by whoever’s office.
CONNELL: But if he’s relying off of what someone has said and they don’t have the metadata, for example, and they are unable to trace it? I can’t get metadata from a website I was on a couple of months ago.
BUTLER: I can’t but I’m sure someone could.
CONNELL: If it is unavailable for whatever reason and he’s having to rely on someone and it is found to be untruthful is that still his fault?
BUTLER: The Government has never said, as far as I’m aware, they’ve never said that they are unable to trace the metadata involving, apparently Angus Taylor or his office accessing the City of Sydney’s Council website on the 9th of September. They’ve refused to provide any evidence, including metadata evidence, about what if anything was downloaded from that website on that day.
CONNELL: Where we sit now it falls on whether there are chargers or not. If there are no chargers for whatever reason is that the end of it for Labor?
BUTLER: No because it is quite clear the only thing we do know from all of the evidence, the metadata from the council and the internet archives, is that the claim made by Angus Taylor that these figures were directly downloaded from the City of Sydney website is false.
CONNELL: There is no evidence for it you can’t be categorical about that?
BUTLER: The only way its true is if the metadata produced by the Council is false and the publicly available internet archives, including the Trove database maintained by the National Library, is also false.
CONNELL: But you’re saying even if there are no changes, if there is insufficient evidence, you’ll still pursue him?
BUTLER: Absolutely. It is pretty clear on the face of it that he has misled Parliament. The sanction for that under the Ministerial Standards is absolutely clear. There is no more important pillar of the Westminster system of Ministerial accountability that Ministers cannot mislead Parliament.
CONNELL: Alright so regardless Labor pursues this. What if he can produce some metadata does that mean you’ll stop pursing it. Are you open to new evidence coming in?
BUTLER: Of course we are but this matter has been around for weeks and he has failed to produce a scrap of evidence of where these figures came from except maintaining as early as this week that it was directly downloaded from the website. We know that not to be true.
CONNELL: Mark Butler, thanks for your time.
BUTLER: Thanks Tom.