TOM CONNELL, HOST: Joining me now for more on this, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister, Patrick Gorman, and former Liberal MP for Mackellar, Jason Falinski. Thank you both for your time. Look, impossible to ignore this line again and again and again. I might actually play it here for our viewers, because Anthony Albanese was asked things along the lines of when Australia knew? Was Pine Gap used? Was there any element we helped the US in terms of intelligence? This was the response we got:
[Press conference clip plays]
ANTHONY ALBANESE, PRIME MINISTER: But we confirm, of course, that this was a unilateral action by the United States. We've made very clear this was unilateral action taken by the United States.
JOURNALIST: Was your government briefed prior to the attack?
PRIME MINISTER: This was unilateral action taken by the United States.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister. Prime Minister.
JOURNALIST: PM, you weren't briefed? Is that the –
PRIME MINISTER: This was unilateral action taken by the United States.
JOURNALIST: And there was absolutely no Australian involvement whatsoever, refuelling jets, nothing, nothing whatsoever?
PRIME MINISTER: Well, I can't be clearer than this was unilateral action taken by the United States.
[end of clip]
CONNELL: He could have been clearer, Patrick Gorman, we could've had some answers. Is this all we're going to hear, 'unilateral action by the United States'?
PATRICK GORMAN, ASSISTANT MINISTER TO THE PRIME MINISTER: I think your viewers know exactly what that means Tom. What it means is this was a decision taken by the United States Government, executed by the United States. We recognise that Australia is not a central player in the region. We do not have the capabilities that were deployed by the United States. It was a unilateral action. We have been really open about that.
CONNELL: But not open about when we knew, how we knew, was Pine Gap used? You're not open about that. You can say, we're not going to tell you for this reason, but we're not getting told are we?
GORMAN: Well, some of those matters you raised Tom go to obviously intelligence matters, and we don't comment on those as a matter of process, and you know that, and your viewers are well aware that's a long-standing position that the Australian Government has taken under successive Labor and Liberal governments. What we recognise, this was a decision taken by the United States Government. We said that our goal, our policy goal has been for a long time that we do not believe Iran should have access to nuclear weapons capabilities, and therefore we support actions that ensure that that is not the case.
CONNELL: We did hear more from the UK and France, but Jason, is this an extension of on-water matters here, that both sides like a bit of secrecy?
JASON FALINSKI, FORMER LIBERAL MP: Look what Patrick says is completely correct. It was a question that, of course, should be asked, but no government would ever contemplate answering that question because it goes to national security matters, and you don't tell your enemies what it is and how you do it. But you know, we just learnt more about this operation and Australia's response to it from Patrick than we did from a 45 minute Prime Ministerial press conference. And that's just not good enough, frankly. And many of our allies are asking, what exactly is going on in Australia, and what does the Australian Government stand for?
CONNELL: In regards to what? What's changed that they're querying that? What does the Australian Government have to say differently that they didn't say today for example?
FALINSKI: Well, the fact that it took 24 hours, Tom, is of major concern, the fact that we don't seem to be willing to say things clearly and sensibly to the Australian people, and to the world, about what we do and don't support. We have these word games, and I think it sows confusion. And in international affairs, especially when you have a random actor like the Iranian Government trying to accumulate nuclear weapons, you need to be clear about what you will and won't stand for. And we have seen over and over again, how when we don't -
CONNELL: We had the delay. But -
FALINSKI: - that it ultimately leads to conflict.
CONNELL: What was the government not clear about what they should support today, putting the delays on?
FALINSKI: Well, for example. Well, Tom, you saw the press conference just like every Australian did. He was asked, you know, did he support this? He answered that he was opposed to Iran gaining nuclear weapons. But once again, Patrick was more fulsome in his views on that than the Prime Minister was, and he kept repeating this line that it was a unilateral action taken by the United States. That lack of clarity allows malintented actors, both here and around the world, to say that we are not firm in our belief of standing up for values around the world and the law, international order based on law.
CONNELL: Is it a civil matter, Patrick, that the government does support, specifically these air strikes on the Iranian nuclear sites?
GORMAN: Well, firstly, I think it's important I address the matter that Jason just raised, which is my position, and the Prime Minister's position, the Foreign Minister's position, the Australian Government's position, are entirely the same. That is, that we have said for a long period of time, that we do not believe that Iran should have access to that nuclear weapons capability, and therefore we -
CONNELL: Is this the only way to stop it at this point?
GORMAN: - and therefore we support actions that prevent them from gaining that capability.
CONNELL: This action, not just actions, this action?
GORMAN: A range of actions, including what we've seen in the last 48 hours. Now, what I would also say to your viewers is that it's important that we think about now, where does it go from here? What happens next? And what Australia wants to see. And again, the Australian Government, through the Prime Minister and others, have been very clear what Australia wants to see is de-escalation and a return to diplomacy.
CONNELL: Alright -
GORMAN: We do not see that a long, drawn out war in the Middle East is in Australia's national interest. We've expressed that incredibly clearly. Jason would have heard that message, and I reiterate it again.
CONNELL: Jason, let's turn to tax reform. I know you didn't make it all the way to Treasurer, maybe one day. But if you were right now in charge of the country's finances, can you give us, and just make it, you know, dumb it down for us, give us 30 seconds - what would your big, bold reforms be?
FALINSKI: Well, Tom, I've said for a long time that our tax system is one of the most complex and counterproductive tax systems in the world. It needs to be made fairer and simpler for all Australians, so that it is not used for social policy. At the moment, there are too many loopholes in the tax system that encourage people to game the tax system rather than to work out products and services that Australians, or indeed people around the world, want to have. So we have a tax system that disincentivises productivity, disincentivises innovation. And I see during the week that Jim Chalmers is going back to Ken Henry to try and fix the problem. I guess he was largely involved in creating the problem, so maybe he knows how to fix it. But I suspect that Ken Henry sees himself as the Gordon Ramsay of tax policy. But you know, when you let him loose in your kitchen, he ends up at the toaster burning the toast. I don't think that this augurs well for genuine reform in Australia over the next decade or so.
CONNELL: Alright. I haven't seen Gordon Ramsay burn toast before, but maybe you're watching more than me. Patrick, on Budget repair, I did find this interesting because Jim Chalmers stood up and said, you know, ‘Budget's more sustainable, but not sustainable enough.’ It's not something we heard during the campaign. During the campaign, 'we heard Labor's delivered surpluses, everything's great' and now you're saying we better fix the budget. Why didn't you tell us during the campaign?
GORMAN: Well, Tom, I don't accept that characterisation -
CONNELL: What part of it?
GORMAN: What we said during the campaign is that we have a record of Budget repair. And we put that out for the Australian people to see, in the Budgets we delivered in our first term.
CONNELL: But you didn’t say that the Budget is not yet sustainable enough, did you?
GORMAN: I think anyone who has read the Budget papers, forward estimates, would know that we would like to be in a more sustainable position.
CONNELL: So the average voter just had to read the forward estimates and it was all going to be clear to them?
GORMAN: Well they’ve got to watch, of course, excellent programmes like yours Tom, and then I’d encourage them to read the Budget papers for themselves.
CONNELL: Really? That’s the pitch now, read the Budget papers?
GORMAN: I’ve said many times, and I’ll say it again. I think everyone should read the Budget papers. The work that our public servants do – and it’s United Nations Public Service Day, so let me say a big thank you to the public servants who work to put those Budgets together, hard-working people who really care about Australia’s future -
FALINSKI: Aren’t you the Minister for Public Service?
GORMAN: Thank you for asking, Jason, yes I am.
FALINSKI: Aren’t you thanking yourself at this point?
CONNELL: Six days a year?
GORMAN: No, I am thanking the people who actually do the work, the public servants who are there in Services Australia all over the country, actually delivering services for the Australian people -
CONNELL: The number of times you have an annual day or something, which you in our group WhatsApp, you put up there. I don't know. I can't keep track of them.
GORMAN: I’ve got a list, Tom, I'll send it to you.
CONNELL: Great. That'd be good.
FALINSKI: Yeah, according to the UN we have 580 days in a year.
CONNELL: Yeah, my maths is decent, so that doesn't seem to fit with the days. Patrick, is that really what you're saying? Just read the forward estimates?
GORMAN: No, I was answering your question, Tom, which was to be really clear that we talk about -
CONNELL: But when you say you don't agree with my question, what I said was you weren't clearly saying we need to do more Budget repair during the election, were you?
GORMAN: Well, even during the election, we took savings to the election where we said we could get better value for Australian taxpayers -
FALINSKI: Name them.
GORMAN: We also took policy -
FALINSKI: How?
GORMAN: We also took policies that are including ones that you've spoken about on this programme. About making sure that our superannuation system is more sustainable for the future, which does include making sure that we reduce some of those overly generous tax breaks for very large superannuation balances. We took that to the election as well -
CONNELL: Yeah. But that’s not part of the new world reform because its already there. Alright -
GORMAN: What there is, is a determination to go further, to be the government that the Australian people elected us to be, which is -
CONNELL: Sorry, Jason, I'll have to leave it there, I'll give you more of a go next week. Pat just got me with that line about the forward estimates. Jason, Patrick, thank you. We'll talk next week.
GORMAN: Thanks Tom.