GREG JENNETT, HOST: Okay, why don't we bring in now our political panel for today? And joining us in the studio, Labor MP for Perth and Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister, Patrick Gorman's. back. And New South Wales Liberal Senator Andrew Bragg is here too. Welcome to both of you. Why don't we start with, I suppose, the major talking point, at least coming out of Question Time there in the House, Pat, and that's the cyber attack on Optus with Clare O'Neil flagging some sort of policy regime that will flow from this. Do you have any clear understanding about what more is needed to be done, whether it be penalties or other things to protect customers affected?
PATRICK GORMAN, ASSISTANT MINISTER TO THE PRIME MINISTER: We're going to look at all of those options and, of course, penalty is a last resort. What you want is to stop these events from happening. And what I think is really disappointing for so many millions of Optus customers, one-in-two Australians are customers of Optus. And what you want is for there not to be this situation where all of a sudden you are worried about who's got your personal details. And again, we are dealing with such a reputable company. So what we are focused on right now is calling on Optus to do their job, to make sure they communicate clearly with their customers and do everything they can to make sure that this breach is stopped and wherever they can, they prevent that data getting into the public domain. And of course, we provide as much assistance as we can AFP is in there helping. Home Affairs are in there helping. Australian Signals Directorate. And the Minister has also spoken to the CEO of Optus.
JENNETT: Yeah, Andrew, I suppose if you had to list, apart from the banks, the most important, and you would hope strongest security institutions, Telstra and Optus would be really high on your list, wouldn't they? Were you surprised by the sheer scale of this and how it couldn't have been prevented by Optus?
ANDREW BRAGG, NSW LIBERAL SENATOR: Well, I have so much of our personal details and data and the same goes for Google or Amazon or Facebook and they also have a lot of data. So this is not just about telcos or banks. And I think what's important now is that we have all the policies and laws in place to protect people because, frankly, we're going to have more and more of these issues in the future because so much of our data is underneath the lock and key of these organisations.
JENNETT: So is the Government response, do you think, about remediation and protection of the customer data or is it, as Clare O'Neil alluded to in her statement in the House, she kind of pointed to other countries that have big penalties. Hundreds of millions of dollars, she said, which comes first.
BRAGG: We've proposed stronger penalties with the ransomware Bill and Karen Andrews reintroduced that as a private member's bill today. So that has been our view on that for some time in government and in opposition.
JENNETT: Okay, Pat, then could you say that with a big penalty regime, hundreds of millions of dollars Optus wouldn't have let this happen or might have been more strongly protected?
GORMAN: Well, it's too early to say. In terms of exactly what allowed the breach to happen, I think everyone can agree it should not have happened. And it's clear that something in Optus’ systems has allowed quite a large breach. We're not talking about a small number of files here. We're talking about, effectively, their whole customer database. As the Prime Minister said earlier today, it is a wake-up call to every corporation who operates in Australia. I think Andrew's point is well made, but it's not just Australian companies operating in Australia. It's about companies that come into Australia who have offshore operations. Everyone who does business in Australia needs to take this seriously and if necessary, to do more to force companies to take this seriously, acknowledging that many already do, we're open to taking that action.
JENNETT: It does sound like there'll be more to come from Clare O'Neil on that. Andrew Bragg, why don't we take it to something that will capture a lot of attention in this place from tomorrow and this is Mark Dreyfus laying out his bill for an Integrity Commission. There are hints from your own leader that at the end of the day, you're likely to fall into line, subject to a few qualifications. Is that universally accepted in the Coalition that the time is up now for a bigger take on a Federal Commission to be established?
BRAGG: My long-term position has been that we should look to the Victorian model, where you have to build a brief of evidence to use coercive powers and then you can use public hearings. I don't think that characterising an Integrity Commission as a kangaroo court has helped us. I think the reality is that no one should be above or beyond approach and that the Integrity Commission needs to have strong coercive powers, but there needs to be thresholds in place here. So I look forward to seeing the bill, but that has been my long term view on it.
JENNETT: So, in other words, you felt then and feel now that the Morrison Government could have or should have moved down this path?
BRAGG: It's quite clear that we should have been able to deal with this in the last Parliament, and I'm hoping we can deal with it in this Parliament. And it's important that it's able to capture all the vested interests because obviously this Government's initial moves around class action law firms and unions and super funds have shown that there's a very cosy relationship there. So I think it's important that it's able to capture all these entities.
JENNETT: Well, it doesn't sound based on a statement that Mark Dreyfus made in Question Time, where you were, Patrick Gorman, doesn't sound like he's going to be singling out or distinguishing particular third parties. He was laying out some principles there, though, that would allow them potentially to be caught up in this commission. Is that a correct interpretation?
GORMAN: The Attorney General said where people are seeking to influence or encourage public officials to engage in corrupt behaviour, of course they'll be captured by our legislation. What it's important to note, though, is that we are making this huge step in the right direction, that is to get a national integrity body that sits over all of this building, all of our Ministers and indeed all of the public sector. That's a really important and big step and that's what we want to see happen. And I think, as Andrew just outlined, hopefully the will is there in both the House and the Senate to not just get this done, but given we've been waiting for so many years, let's get it done this year.
JENNETT: And public hearings, or the ability to have them, if the Commission so decided, has been a sticking point, do you think that's been resolved?
GORMAN: The Commission should have the right to hold public hearings. One of the important pieces of integrity body does is that it gives the public more faith in their institutions. What we've seen in Australia and indeed around the world is a declining faith in our democratic institutions. So this is actually also about moving us back in the right direction of having faith and trust in the institutions that hold taxpayers money, hold those great powers that come with a democratic system. And I think, again, if we can get it done this year, the public will say, okay, good, Parliament is actually doing what it should be doing.
JENNETT: And is bipartisanship important on this or important to you anyway, Andrew, that it stands the test of time? It would be preferable that it had bipartisan support. I asked that question because some of the crossbenchers seem a little miffed that in the end their votes may not count for a lot in the House in particular. From a Liberal point of view, do you think it's important that this does go through with major party support?
BRAGG: I think when you look at any policy area where the parties of government can come together and agree on major institutional arrangements, that is going to be in the country's long-term interests. I mean, we don't want to be having a tit for tat about this Integrity Commission forever. It's not in the country's interests because if we can't land this, then the institutions themselves will become the subject of ridicule. And so I think it is preferable if we can get there. And as I say, I think if we can establish a basis that everything is captured no one is beyond the reach of the institution and that all the powers that are necessary can be used, but used with some safeguards and I don't see why we wouldn't be able to agree on this. I think this has become more it has become more of a political issue than it needed to be.
JENNETT: Yeah, well, we've certainly come a long way in a short amount of time since the election has blown some of those cobwebs away around that issue. Just finally, we might get some thoughts from both of you on our television screens from today will be the Uluru Statement television advertising campaign starting or attempting to start momentum towards the Voice. I don't know if you've seen it yet. Patrick Gorman.
GORMAN: I have.
JENNETT: Did you find it persuasive?
GORMAN: I went to the launch that was held here in Parliament House this morning of that advertisement and communications campaign. It spoke to me and said this is possible. And it talked about a potential future where actually the country comes together about this. We don't want this to be a divisive issue. We want this to be a moment that brings people together, recognises that the people who have cared for this country for 65,000 years can have a voice to this great Parliament that we all work in, and we say that this is something that we can do as a nation. Actually, I've already excited about this, but it excited me about the potential beyond, hopefully, a successful referendum vote, about what it would mean for our country, how it would enable us to bring more of the insights of First Nations people into our policy making. And I think that would be a good thing. I welcome the advertisement, but it's going to be tough. That's the other thing is that we're a long way from a successful referendum vote and this is just one small step in a very long journey we're going to walk on together.
JENNETT: Well, exactly. And as someone who I know is very supportive of the Voice, Andrew Bragg, it does seem a bit presumptuous to start to think of how it might operate after the referendum. But based on the advertisement and the appeal to, I suppose, hope, really, isn't it, or optimism? Do you think it hits the right notes? Is it going to land on fertile ground?
BRAGG: Well, I think there's a lot of uncertainty about what exactly people are going to be asked to vote on, and I think there's a reasonable question to be asked about what would the question be, what would the words be, what would the job be of the organisation? I think those questions need to be answered clearly, because as we saw with …
JENNETT: Some of those answers are for you parliamentarians.
BRAGG: Yeah. And that's why I personally think that a Parliamentary inquiry would help us build some consensus here, because there are many different views in this building about what this thing should look like and if there should be a Voice. And I think that I'm concerned that a large part of the population is confused about what it actually would be. And so I think there are lessons to be learned from the marriage equality campaign here, where there are different messages that go to different people, frankly, to convince them that it's a fair and reasonable idea.
JENNETT: Well, I think we'll be talking about this for months to come, both of you familiar, might we say, with campaigns and campaign techniques. So we might come back to you for further elaboration on that big task ahead for the nation. But we've got legislation coming. What do we expect next year to set up the referendum?
GORMAN: We'll outline more around as that referendum comes. We've said we want to get it done this term and we'll seek the optimum timing for a successful referendum. The goal isn't holding the referendum. The goal is giving our First Nations people a voice to Parliament enshrined in the Constitution.
JENNETT: All right, we will definitely be talking about this on future occasions. Andrew Bragg, Patrick Gorman, thanks both for joining us today on the program.