KIERAN GILBERT, HOST: Okay, let's bring in Assistant Minister to the PM, Pat Gorman. Should you have programs like this where it's invitation only for grants?
PATRICK GORMAN, ASSISTANT MINISTER TO THE PRIME MINISTER: Well, governments should deliver on the election commitments that they make at democratically-held elections. That is exactly what has happened in this case. And can I just say, I had sports clubs in my electorate who lost money. They had money that they had been fairly awarded through the sports programs administered by the previous Liberal-National government. They had that money ripped away from them and given to clubs in Liberal electorates. I am not going to take a lecture from Bridget McKenzie of all people about proper government administration.
GILBERT: What's wrong with how the ABC handled that, though? The Prime Minister's not happy.
GORMAN: I think the Prime Minister very clearly said that there has been a lot of information that was given to the ABC, that was not contained in their report. I think the important pieces of fact in this discussion is firstly, this was an honorary membership given some 15 years ago. Its value is about $5. The grant in question went to a local government. So, this is a government-to-government payment from the Commonwealth to another level of government. I think the ABC is looking for a bit more than is there when it comes to this story.
GILBERT: Okay, so in terms of the way that Labor's attacked others though in the past, including Bridget McKenzie, is there a bit of hypocrisy here, given how many Labor seats benefited from this program?
GORMAN: I have been a huge critic of what happened under former Minister McKenzie. What happened there was – take the Mount Lawley Bowls Club in my electorate. They were recommended to receive a grant for their greens. And then because of ‘sports rorts’ and the colour coded spreadsheets, Senator McKenzie, then a Nationals minister, took that money and gave it to another club in a Liberal electorate.
GILBERT: But this is this government. And Member for Indi, Helen Haines, she says it's pork barrelling. Is this old school pork barrelling from the Government?
GORMAN: What you see from Helen Haines and a range of others is that people do go to elections and make commitments and then if they are fortunate enough to be elected to government, then deliver on those commitments. That is what has happened here. It is no different to the commitment I made to redevelop Leederville Oval to get more changerooms for women's sport. Something that was welcomed by my community and we have delivered upon that.
GILBERT: Do you think in a way the Prime Minister won't be displeased with some of the reporting, at least in Grayndler, his seat?
GORMAN: Well, he is very proud of his electorate. I think every local member who comes and sits on this desk will always tell you that they want to make sure that they listen to their communities and that where they can they deliver. And when it comes to election commitments, which is what we are talking about, that is why we get the advice from the public service about how to deliver those election commitments, and that is what we have done on this case.
GILBERT: The Digital Duty of Care. Is this a slippery slope? Should a minister have that sort of power or unelected bureaucrats like the eSafety Commissioner dictating what is good and bad?
GORMAN: I want the Parliament to have the power. And what we have seen from Minister Wells is a really clear explanation. I know that a lot of your viewers, when someone like me, a politician says 'it's a disallowable instrument,' they would go, 'what on earth does that mean and why should I care?' Well, let me tell you. What it means is when a Minister makes a decision, that decision is then put in front of the Parliament and parliamentarians from all parties can see what decision the Minister is proposing to make and if they want to, they can suggest –
GILBERT: So, it's not some Orwellian attempt to try and control the debate? That's how it's been perceived by some.
GORMAN: No. The powers that we granted to the Communications Minister under our proposed Digital Duty of Care will stay with the Parliament. The Parliament will see the proposals that the Minister is putting forward, and the Parliament will have the right to accept or reject those proposals, and that is democracy.
GILBERT: But the government of the day, if it's got the numbers, can ride something through to their benefit?
GORMAN: This is democracy in its purest sense, which is a minister makes a decision and it is up to the Parliament to confirm it. And I will note that when it comes to the Senate, as much as I would wish that the Government had the numbers in the Senate, we do not. And it is very rare for a government to have the numbers in the Senate. And so, as a result, you have proper democracy, where a minister proposes a decision, the Parliament has to confirm that.
GILBERT: Should the Prime Minister expect a bit of pushback from President Trump when he meets him shortly, on the sidelines at the United Nations?
GORMAN: The Prime Minister and President Trump have a very good, constructive working relationship, and we've seen that through a range of engagements.
GILBERT: You don't expect pushback on this?
GORMAN: I will expect that the United States Government will put their views on a range of matters, just as we as a sovereign nation put our views. But we have seen from the previous engagements that Prime Minister Albanese and President Trump have had, they have got a really good working relationship. And I would expect that to continue later in September.
GILBERT: Assistant Minister to the PM, Pat Gorman. Thanks.