28 May 2024
Topics: direction 99, workplace culture at the Department of Parliamentary Services, corporate tax rates
E&OE
Greg Jennett:
We’re going to bring in Liberal frontbencher Jonno Duniam who happens to be a Tasmanian Senator, impervious this week to divisions because you’re doing a whole lot of budget estimates. We’ll start with you, Jonno, welcoming you and we’ll wait for Matt to join us a little later. We did have a discussion with your colleague Dan Tehan at the beginning of the program today about immigration direction 99. Your side of politics is calling on the Government to get rid of it all together in view of the fact that criminal non-citizens have used it to challenge their deportation or their detention. Is there anything that the Senate can do to force this? The Senate has various powers through disallowable regulations and the like, would this fall into that category?
Senator Duniam:
Well, it is a disallowable instrument. It is a regulation. The Minister with a stroke of the pen can alter the law. I believe the time for disallowing this instrument has passed the Senate. It’s normally I think it’s a fifteen sitting day period after the tabling of the instrument in which disallowance can occur. As far as I’m aware that has passed so it is incumbent upon the Government to actually go ahead and reverse this, repeal this direction 99 which is the cause of so many problems, and I think Dan Tehan, James Patterson have nailed it on the head there and we’ve got to fix it.
Greg Jennett:
So we definitely know more about the cases that have successfully appealed using direction 99 at the AAT, we do know more about that now than we did, let’s say fifteen days after that regulation was tabled but if it was so objectionable all along and we’re told it was from the Coalition’s point of view, why wasn’t it sought to be wiped out at the earliest possible opportunity last year?
Senator Duniam:
Well, I think hindsight is a beautiful thing. We’ve now seen as a flow on from NZYQ and the release of the detainees, many of whom have caused such great issues in our community, one fifth as I understand it as at today having been charged in some way and a number of those serious offenders, sex criminals and other sorts of offences amongst their list of failings as people. With that information now at our disposal, it is upon the Government and, as I say, hindsight is a beautiful thing, to actually do what’s right now. They can do it tomorrow, they can do it today and repeal this legislative instrument and ensure that Australians are safe. That’s their one job on this issue.
Greg Jennett:
And would it cause you any concern on the way through if that affected badly affected Australia’s very strong and stable relationship with New Zealand, which again we discussed this earlier, Jonno Duniam, in the program at New Zealand’s multiple requests for this is how we really got to direction 99 in the first place.
Senator Duniam:
Well, obviously the New Zealand Government made similar requests of us when we were in Government and it was something we weren’t willing to entertain. Individually, I think that if there were Australians causing harm to New Zealanders and it was their rule to send those sorts of people back to Australia for us to deal with, fair enough. On that basis I say the same for New Zealand. They should be dealing with those people who are a problem in our society under their law and judicial system.
Greg Jennett:
Alright, Jonno Duniam, hold that thought. We’re going to introduce now Matt Thistlethwaite. Matt, welcome back to the program. We did inform our audience that you were a little waylaid over in the House of Representatives. Glad to see you’re clear although I’m told you might have to run again. Let’s hit you with what questions we can in the interim. So, we’re talking about direction 99. You sat through Question Time where question after question was directed at Andrew Giles. Why do we still need that direction?
Matt Thistlethwaite MP:
Well, I’ve had a look at direction 99 and it makes it pretty clear that it’s a direction to decision makers around visa cancellations and it makes it pretty clear that if anyone is convicted of a serious offence which is defined as a defence involving violence of sexual nature, any family or domestic violence, then their visa should be cancelled. It makes it pretty clear and the Minister cancelled these visas. He said that these are people who should not be in Australia. They’ve failed the character test, cancelled the visa, then that person then goes and has seeks to have it reviewed, that decision by the AAT and the AAT overturned the decision. It’s the Governments wish that these people should have their visa cancelled.
Greg Jennett:
So in the interests of consistency, to remove the ability to go and successfully appeal at AAT, why not remove the direction?
Matt Thistlethwaite MP:
Well, if you remove the direction then you don’t have any view of the Government about the serious nature of these offences and a visa cancellation. It’s in the hands of the decision maker and we think that that may actually be a worse situation where you could have these decisions overturned on a routine basis. At least with the direction there you make it very clear if someone is convicted of a serious offence, then they should have their visa cancelled.
Greg Jennett:
Is there not another mechanism that could be used here where the Minister had the right and I thought routinely the Minister did have the right to cancel visas without recourse to the AAT.
Matt Thistlethwaite MP:
The Minister does have the right and the Minister exercises that and in many most of these cases, the Minister did exercise that right to cancel the visa, but under our system of democracy people have the right to have their decisions of a Government reviewed either through the AAT or then all the way up to the High Court, which is what’s happened in other cases. And it’s those tribunals that have to overturn the Minister’s decisions, not the Government. It’s the tribunals that have overturned ministerial decisions to cancel visas.
Greg Jennett:
Alright, last word to you on this Jonno, does that sort of make a legal or logical sense that argument, that things could be worse if the direction wasn’t there, enabling the Minister to cancel the visa in the first place?
Senator Duniam:
If the direction were purely about getting rid of and cancelling the visas of serious criminals and offenders who are not Australian citizens, then the direction would have that effect. It also takes into account family ties and this is where direction 99 is leading members of the Administrative Appeal Tribunal, a number of them, not just one, this is a pattern from a number of members of the Tribunal who are responding to a ministerial direction to make these decisions. So you made the point before -consistency, I think that’s what’s needed here. If the Minister wanted to cancel the visa and he did, then the direction should follow through and not give the AAT an out through pointing to family ties. That’s where the problem is. The Government can fix it today.
Greg Jennett:
Alright, I think you might hear more questions on that somehow as the week progresses, Matt Thistlethwaite. Now you are in a rare club of people in the Parliament who have sat in both Chambers, Matt Thistlethwaite, that means you probably had experience of the Department of Parliamentary Services in in lots of ways. Plenty of questions asked there in Senate Estimates today. It is important that that department because of its role in set the standard and workplace culture that it kind of checks all its own boxes on workplace culture, doesn’t it? Has it ever struck you that it is a toxic workplace?
Matt Thistlethwaite MP:
Well, I know that these allegations have been uncovered in Senate Estimates today and I think that that’s an example of the parliamentary process is doing their job and that there is scrutiny on Government departments and indeed the culture, and if there is a toxic culture in that department, then certainly that’s something that will need to be fixed.
Greg Jennett:
You would encounter security guards, cleaners, gardeners and the like. It’s not uncommon to hear grumblings around this building as a as a workplace for those who perform those duties. Does it surprise you that they’re complaining of a toxic work culture?
Matt Thistlethwaite MP:
Well, in my situation, all of my dealings with staff at Parliament have been very professional and I find that they do a very good job. A lot of the time we rely on people behind the scenes to do research for us, to provide services, and in my experience they provide a very professional service and do a good job. But now that these allegations have been raised, no doubt they’ll be looked at. There has been a lot of inquiring and looking at culture in Parliament, particularly as it relates to Parliamentarians, and so it should be, we should be the focus and the respect at work report, the Jenkins report has made a number of recommendations that the Government has adopted. We want to make sure that in every element of workplace culture here at Parliament that people have the right to respect at work and that they can feel safe coming to work.
Greg Jennett:
I’m sure you wouldn’t argue against that, Jonno Duniam, you were in other committees today, so you may not have been fully aware of the exchanges involving the Secretary of the Department of Parliamentary Services. He was under intense scrutiny for what he calls a perceived conflict of interest, and he’s denied at any time while he was boss that he had a romantic relationship as it was put to him in a question with his deputy. Does this all wash, the testimony that you’re aware of today?
Senator Duniam:
Well, look, I have to say in most other workplaces, when scrutiny is applied to a claim like that, it doesn’t wash, it doesn’t stack up and there are consequences that flow. Certainly in politics for elected members, there would be certain consequences. We’ve seen that play out before. I am surprised that so close to the heart of democracy when you have such an expansive press gallery that this sort of thing can go unnoticed for as long as it did, and only now we’re learning about it in the public domain. I know there have been sort of rumours and rumblings, but frankly, there are questions that need to be answered and we’re at the heart of democracy. Let’s make sure we get it right for Australians.
Greg Jennett:
Alright, quick, final one for you on Ed Husic’s comments. We played them just while you were making your way here, Matt, the corporate tax cuts, time for a big national conversation and Government move on this?
Matt Thistlethwaite MP:
Well, I think the point that Ed was making is that that we’re doing a pretty good job managing the budget situation. We got real wages moving once again and that could perhaps be a consideration in the future. But we are, we do have incentives in the current budget to ensure that we’re supporting business, particularly the tax incentive associated with our program to manufacture here in Australia and Ed’s had responsibility for that and I think that that’s an indication that the Government is on the right track with the management of the economy and the management of the budget that we do have these incentives that will stimulate business investment and then perhaps we can look at those in the future.
Greg Jennett:
Well, we’ll see if Jim Chalmers has the same view. Seemed to come a bit out of the blue there. I might get you to hold your thoughts, Jonno Duniam, since we had a long run with you at the outset. We’ll come back to corporate tax cuts at another time I think. Matt Thistlethwaite, Jonno, thank you.