TOM CONNELL, HOST: The big issue of the week has been what Australia will do in regards to Israel and Palestine. Namely, Penny Wong kicking off what she wanted was to be a debate over giving Palestine or recognising Palestinian statehood, ahead of the culmination of a two state solution. Joining me now Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister Patrick Gorman, and former Liberal MP Jason Falinski. Thanks both for your time. Patrick, I'll start with you. The debates already there, what's your view? Should Australia pledge just what Penny Wong has considered. Vote for this at the UN if and when it comes to it?
PATRICK GORMAN, ASSISTANT MINISTER TO THE PRIME MINISTER AND ASSISTANT MINISTER FOR THE PUBLIC SERVICE: Well, Australia for a long time has aspired to see a future Palestinian state. That is not a new statement. What it recognises is the fact that of course, for the things that many of us hold dear including a secure State of Israel where people can live in peace and security. That takes us to the obvious conclusion that we need to see a future Palestinian state part of a two-state solution. That's what the Foreign Minister outlined this week. Of course, this is in the context of, dealing with really grave humanitarian challenges in the immediate period. But what I would really hope is that we do get to that point where we see a future Palestinian state. I also want to make sure that your viewers know that we have been incredibly clear, for a long time. As you know, there is no role in any future leadership or governance of Gaza, or of any future Palestinian state for terrorist groups like Hamas. When we get to the immediate challenges that we're seeing -
CONNELL: Just on that, because, as I said, so the debates out there, but what's your view? Because, yes, two-state solution, Palestinian statehood, but should Australia support Palestinian statehood, with the caveats you have attached before a two-state solution? Which would be a shift.
GORMAN: If you are asking me to speculate on future votes of the United Nations, I will not do that on this program, Tom, I think it's unreasonable to expect that I would. What we are seeking to do is to be very consistent, which we have been. That is what the Palestinian people, that is it is reasonable for them to expect that there is international community support for a future Palestinian state. We have stated that many times over. While we also recognise that in the immediate, and I think this is important, in the immediate challenges that we see in Gaza right now the Government has again, for months been calling for humanitarian ceasefire. We want to say that. I would really welcome Peter Dutton joining that call for a humanitarian ceasefire. That is what the international community wants to see. It is what conservatives like David Cameron, former Leader of the Conservatives in the United Kingdom, now Foreign Secretary in the UK, that's what they are calling for. I think there's a real question as to why, when it comes to this really important question - that is in front of the international community right now - why Peter Dutton is not joining those calls for some form of a humanitarian ceasefire? He's never outlined that. He has also never outlined any path towards a resolution to his current conflicts.
CONNELL: Jason, why don't I start that with you? Should we've heard more from the Liberal Party about calling for that humanitarian ceasefire?
JASON FALINSKI, FORMER LIBERAL MEMBER FOR MACKELLAR: Tom, that's a really good question. I just think this call by Penny Wong was reckless and unfortunately, came across as sanctimonious. I think most Australians believe it had more to do with peace at the Victorian State Conference than it did in the Middle East. In terms of ceasefires, the Liberal Party has always worked with international organisations to ensure that every person wherever they are in the world can live in some sort of safety and security. But, you know, there is one way to get a ceasefire today, and that is Hamas can give back the 138 people that they have taken unlawfully, and the problem that I have with a lot of what Penny Wong says is that there's never any emphasis on that, and I don't understand why she is playing this, these games with our foreign policy.
CONNELL: What did you make of Peter Dutton's comments that come in on the October 9 protest, Jason, at the Sydney Opera House were akin to a Port Arthur moment in terms of social significance? Was that a fair comparison to make?
FALINSKI: Yeah, look, I think what he was referring to there was that it was a moment of an opportunity for leadership that was missed, and that obviously is something that I think we are going to regret for a long time. When Port Arthur happened, John Howard against, frankly, his best interests, stood up to a major part of his constituency, and said, 'No, we need gun reform right now', when that same opportunity existed at the Sydney Opera House. To be fair, Chris Minns, even though he's Police Minister, and a number of people on his front bench, decided to use that as an opportunity. Chris Minns however, on the other hand, came out very strongly and said that this was unacceptable in Australian society. I think what Peter Dutton is saying is that we haven't seen that to the same degree that we should have from the, from the Federal Government and from the leadership.
CONNELL: Patrick, I will let you respond before we move on to the next topic.
GORMAN: Firstly, of course, there is absolutely no place for antisemitism in Australia. It is disgusting, it is completely unacceptable. It should be called out anywhere and everywhere that it exists. In saying that I also don't think that this was a particularly wise comparison, for the Leader of the Opposition to make. I note that it obviously has been particularly hurtful for people in Tasmania. I have seen the comments from Mr Dutton's own backbenchers. I've seen comments from the Tasmanian Premier, all saying that this analogy, even if it was in a really carefully scripted speech that he'd thought about very carefully, he obviously hadn't given it enough thought and it wasn't the best way of making the point that he was trying to make.
CONNELL: We have got not much time and two topics, so quick answers from now on, I'll get a shot clock up maybe. This new plan Patrick, A Future Made in Australia, the message seems to be 'Look, other countries are just saying market economy is dead, let's just sort of subsidise things anyway', is that what we're doing? If you can't beat them join them.
GORMAN: What we are trying to do is to make sure that we secure Australia's economic future. That is what any responsible government would do. If you look at the changes that have happened around the world, yes, there is a huge race and huge competition to be manufacturing the sorts of equipment that we need for that new economy of the future. Of course, I want to say more manufacturing jobs here in Australia. Since we came to office, we've created about 80,000 new manufacturing jobs. 4000 new manufacturing businesses. We want to keep that momentum up. We know that when we have a future made Australia, we create jobs, and we create opportunity, and we take our destiny into our own hands and for a big -
CONNELL: Jason, with the US Inflation Act approach. Is this, are we just joining the inevitable here in your view?
FALINSKI: Tom, those are just terrible ideas. I mean, it seems to me that Jim Chalmers has run out of terrible ideas. So now he's borrowing some from the 1970s. His tax innovation, his tax entrepreneurship, he has regulated risk out of the economy. He's given his mates in the unions everything they want. We're now an uncompetitive nation. So, what better thing to do than to tax what little competition we have left in the country and hand it over to the uncompetitive, union dominated sectors in our economy.
CONNELL: Big last topic, you have got 15 seconds each but this one's important. You are both going to feel strongly about it. The Greens are gunning for Perth, Patrick Gorman's seat. They have got 22% of the primary last time -
FALINSKI: Tell them they are dreaming.
CONNELL: They think that is a winnable seat.
FALINSKI: They are dreaming.
CONNELL: Okay, you can go first. You are going say 'Vote 1 P. Gorman.'
FALINSKI: If your choice is between Patrick Gorman and the Greens. Vote Patrick Gorman every single time. For the for the good of the country and our children.
CONNELL: Patrick's media staff are just sat there calling Sky News now saying 'We need that on tape, please. That's going to form the basis of our next campaign.' Pat, what about you? Is it winnable? Are you worried?
GORMAN: For the last three elections I have faced the Greens, they have been saying that they are going to beat me every time. It doesn't turn out happening. I think people know that The Greens often are quite naive in the policies they put forward. I mean, we have seen that naivety when they voted with Peter Dutton against more housing for WA. We saw that naivety when they voted against investing in more manufacturing for WA. For Western Australians, I think it is worth noting, they don't even back the GST deal that funds our schools and hospitals in WA. So, they have done what the Greens always do. They have over promised, and they will underdeliver.
CONNELL: I will paraphrase that one for you: "An untroubled Mr Gorman appeared nonchalant and said, 'No chance'."
FALINSKI: They don't have a chance Tom. Did you hear that? They are toast.
CONNELL: I think that was the shorter version. I'll agree with you on that Jason. Patrick, Jason we will talk next week. Thank you as ever.