PATRICIA KARVELAS, HOST: I want to bring in my political panel for today. Patrick Gorman is the Assistant Minister for Employment and also the Labor Member for Perth. Garth Hamilton is the Shadow Assistant Minister for Energy Security. Welcome to both of you.
PATRICK GORMAN, ASSISTANT MINISTER TO THE PRIME MINISTER: Thanks for having us.
GARTH HAMILTON, SHADOW ASSISTANT MINISTER FOR ENERGY SECURITY: Thanks PK.
KARVELAS: Have to start on the actual loss in Secret Harbour. It was, yes, a state by-election, Patrick Gorman, but it was brutal for the Labor Party. The first contest where One Nation has won a seat off Labor like this in the contemporary context. It must be alarming to you, this is a pretty big backlash, is it not?
GORMAN: It was a very different type of by-election. But what we always know is that by-elections serve up odd results, and we have seen that throughout recent history at state and federal by-elections. I am not going to shy away from it. We got absolutely thumped at the Secret Harbour by-election. But you have got to be careful of not taking the wrong message. You have got to listen that people made a choice, and that was based on the campaign factors in that local seat, where I will note that One Nation were campaigning on bin collection, train stations and spending a lot of money as well, saying that they are the best friend that Medicare has ever had, which I thought was particularly odd and spoke to some of the concerns that One Nation have about how they might be perceived. But congrats to Luke Herdegen. He won that fair and square. And, of course, after any election, you have to go and look at what you can take out of it. But I also want to be careful about saying, it is a state by-election in one part of Australia. You do not want to see your Commonwealth Government jumping around from one outcome to another because of state by-elections. We will keep doing what we were elected to do, which is to deliver real change for the Australian people.
KARVELAS: Follow up before I go to Garth. It is hardly an outlier, though. This is clearly a political trend that is going on. It is a rejection of the two major parties, is it not?
GORMAN: We will continue to look at the results. I think the thing that is also different is, it is the closest you have ever seen the Liberal Party and One Nation work together. They were effectively using the same messaging. They were doing a very complex and thought-through preference deal together before they even preselected their candidates. You have got to recognise that what we have seen is a big change on the right of Australian politics, where the Liberal Party used to say that they did not agree with One Nation. Now they go out there and say to people, 'please elect One Nation. The Liberal Party cannot do it. The Liberal Party is broken. Let One Nation lead the show.' And I think, over time, people will see that gutlessness from the Liberal Party as something that they are increasingly disappointed in.
KARVELAS: Garth Hamilton, you are a close friend of Andrew Hastie. Are you worried about his political future? Because the result, of course, Labor got smashed, that is clear, but the Liberal result was not particularly good.
HAMILTON: Well, there was a 7 per cent loss of Liberal vote to One Nation and a 22 per cent loss of Labor vote to One Nation. The valiant attempts by my good friend Pat to try and paint this as both ways. This was a stunning rejection of Labor in a very strong Labor seat. Andrew Hastie used to have a Labor state member. Now he has a One Nation state member. But on a two-party-preferred basis, clearly this is a federal set of issues pushing very strongly into a state by-election. And, of course, One Nation do very well in by-elections. We saw that in Farrer, and we are seeing it here.
KARVELAS: Okay, but you concede at the same time, Garth Hamilton, that it is also a rejection of the two-party system?
HAMILTON: There is a lot of anger. My read on this is still very much as it has been for a long time. People are angry, and right now, when they are asked if they are angry, either in a poll or in a by-election, if you are angry, your answer is One Nation. And that is where Australia is right now. And if that is a rejection of the two-party system, I am sure that is how people are feeling. But I think, much broader, it is simply that people just want someone to show leadership. They want someone to show a way forward, and they are not getting that from the current Australian Government.
KARVELAS: Pauline Hanson has said today that Labor leaders, and she talked about Anthony Albanese and Jim Chalmers, have risked normalising and encouraging potential incitements to political violence by not taking their own advice to turn down the temperature. She is specifically referring to remarks where the Prime Minister essentially, you know, described the rise of One Nation like this as dangerous, as divisive and a threat to our country. And she says this incites violence. Does it, or potentially does it, Patrick Gorman, incite violence? And should your side of politics use more careful language?
GORMAN: Well, I completely disagree with the assertion that Senator Hanson has put out there. It has been the Labor Government that have been saying for years and years that we need to bring the temperature down and disagree respectfully. And that is what I do. It is what the Prime Minister does. It is not always, I will be honest, what I see and what I observe from One Nation. But I welcome Senator Hanson joining with us to say that we need to make sure we all treat one another in a respectful way.
KARVELAS: Do you think she is being hypocritical?
GORMAN: Well, your viewers will make their own judgments about some of the -
KARVELAS: What do you think? They will make their own judgments, but I am asking - I am interviewing you, not my viewers. Do you think it is hypocritical?
GORMAN: Look, I have found some of the stunts that Senator Hanson has done over the years, including in the Senate Chamber, to be not consistent with the effort to make sure that we bring Australians together and do our politics respectfully. I believe that we can all do that in a way that -I welcome Senator Hanson joining the Government in saying that we can do our politics in a more respectful way. And I hope that that is the standard that she sets for all of her MPs and all of the candidates that she endorses.
KARVELAS: Okay, Garth Hamilton, I just want to drill down on this. She said that the Prime Minister calling One Nation dangerous, divisive and a threat to our country incites violence. That is a pretty big statement from her. Do you think that is right?
HAMILTON: Start by saying the obvious thing, we do not want to see violence in politics. The examples we saw in the UK were absolutely abhorrent, and we have all seen cases here where people have higher levels of security. So, we do not want that. However, I will not be as careful as Pat. Ms Hanson has made a career, and many of her team, going on Sky News After Dark, saying much worse things by that. I am sure there is a Labor strategist right now trawling through the thousands of comments you have made to be more strongly worded than dangerous, divisive and whatever else it was. You know, I think there is a little bit of hypocrisy at play here in this constant game of, 'I am the victim.' I would remind everybody, this is a party that, by its own admission, is currently infiltrated by extremists. This is a politician who went and did a podcast with Tommy Robinson. This is a party that has Malcolm Roberts throwing his support behind Vladimir Putin. A party that, until very recently, was re-employing a convicted violent sexual offender as campaign director. Please spare me. If you want to talk straight, One Nation voters, hear that out. This is absolute nonsense. It is not right. Hypocrisy should be called hypocrisy, and that is what this is.
KARVELAS: That is kind of an argument I hear, Patrick Gorman, that is the hypocrisy argument. I have got to say, Garth Hamilton kind of said it as I think some people are arguing it. You see it that way too?
GORMAN: Look, I will choose my words. Garth will choose his. But I will just point out that we are able to have a pretty respectful conversation on your program, Patricia. That is the sort of politics that I expect, even when there are deep disagreements. And of course - again, I disagree with the conclusions that Senator Hanson came to. But, of course, we want to make sure that every member of Parliament and everyone who contests an election can go about it peacefully. I will just also note, I spent some time in Secret Harbour during the by-election at pre-poll and on election day. I found that people were able to be respectful despite their differences. You are never sure if that is going to be the case, but I was pleased to see that. And it is what I expect as we go about our democracy. Australia has the best democracy in the world, but it is fragile, it is precious, and we all have a responsibility to choose our words carefully. And maybe where there is an escalation, as we saw from Senator Hanson today, maybe to have a little bit more reflection as to whether that was a wise thing to do.
KARVELAS: I am going to ask one more question about this because she has also posted a very, very alarming picture, which everyone should denounce, which is basically graffiti that says that she should kill Pauline Hanson, is the graffiti. It is really offensive, right?
GORMAN: That is awful. I did not know that. But that is awful.
KARVELAS: It is, and it is wrong, and it is illegal and outrageous. However, the question I want to put to you, Garth, and you have already used very strong words, I have got to say, on this, but is that she says, she mentions the 'dangerous' and 'threat', the Prime Minister’s language, and then she says an hour later this picture was taken in Bendigo alongside a video game character that blows itself up like a suicide bomber. Again, that is outrageous, but is it appropriate to link a political speech criticising One Nation and that image?
HAMILTON: Look, Australia is in a hell of a mess right now, and issues like social cohesion and the threat of violence in politics are things I think people are very attuned to and feel very strongly about. You cannot just keep doing stunts to get attention, and I think that is a message that needs to come out. The Coalition is not offering that. We are offering a plan. We want to address these issues properly, calmly, in a considered way, with a plan. And what we are seeing from One Nation here is the start of just another stunt, which is one in a long line of stunts that I think will miss the mark when Australians come to measure their vote in about 18 months' time. This is not what we want. We want a way forward that solves the problems. We do not want the angriest people in the room dragging us down a pathway of further division.
KARVELAS: Let us talk about something that matters a lot to people in this country, and that is privacy. And anyone who talks, and you guys talk to constituents, I know you both do, knows how absolutely enraged constituents are over their lack of privacy. There is a real sort of sense of loss of control. The Government has announced a bunch of new laws today. But, interestingly, on smart glasses, no ban is being considered on smart glasses. Just to you first, if I can, Patrick Gorman, why would you not think about banning something where it is obviously used in some pretty dodgy ways and they are very accessible?
GORMAN: So the intent of these laws is not to go to a specific type of technology, but instead to recognise that privacy, and the protection of individuals’ privacy, is a right that we have, regardless of what technologies come down the track at us. So that is the principal basis on which the Attorney-General has put out the consultation, and I encourage everyone watching to go and engage in that consultation. It is open for the next month. And the other thing that these proposed laws will do is give people a right to erasure. That is the ability to ask people who hold your data to delete it. I actually had someone come to a mobile office of mine in Tuart Hill last week, enraged that someone he had worked for 20 years ago was still emailing him, still had his data, and he could not get them to delete it. So, these things will make a difference. And I do want to share the concerns that many Australians have about smart glasses. But I just encourage them to realise we are taking a principles-based approach, where the privacy of individuals is respected, and we are not targeting a particular technology, but preserving the rights of Australians.
KARVELAS: Garth Hamilton, I have seen some people on the right side of politics raise concerns around freedom of speech and other issues already in relation to this. I know you have probably only had an early look at the proposal, but there is a right to erasure, so people can ask digital platforms to destroy their stores of personal information, and a fair and reasonable test to limit companies to collecting and using only the personal information they need. Do they sound fair to you?
HAMILTON: Look, on the basis of what has been put forward, I think these are very sensible steps that appear to address those serious concerns that a lot of people have. I think there is a genuine concern in the community that big tech companies have a lot of information about us, and we are not sure how they use that. Often, we know that they use it for their own profit, for their own gain and, often, to our detriment. So this is part of a bigger conversation, I think, and I am not going to take the cheap shot on this one. Clearly, the smart glasses issue came in much later, after this piece of work started. I am very confident that we will have conversations with the Government in a considered way about that issue going forward. But look, I just think there is an issue in Australia, and probably right across the world right now, of the ability for big tech companies to use our data in ways that are not in our interests.
KARVELAS: Definitely a strong level of community concern about it. That is for sure. I want to thank both of you. You have been excellent panellists, and you are right, respectful debate the way it should be. Thank you.
GORMAN: Thank you.
HAMILTON: Thanks PK.