Latest / Uncomfortable Conversations with Josh Szeps / LIVE PANEL: "Who Really Influences Our Politicians?" with Senators Bridget McKenzie & David Pocock, and MP's Allegra Spender & Helen Haines

Transcript

LIVE PANEL: "Who Really Influences Our Politicians?" with Senators Bridget McKenzie & David Pocock, and MP's Allegra Spender & Helen Haines · Uncomfortable Conversations with Josh Szeps

0:00
Get a humans welcome to the safe space for dangerous ideas.
0:07
Something special for you today, a live recording of a one-of-a-kind event.
0:12
It is one of the most uncomfortable and dangerous questions in politics.
0:19
Not what policies, particular politicians or political parties, advocate, but why they
0:26
advocate for them.
0:27
And whether or not their world views are at least in part shaped by wealthy, well-connected,
0:32
powerful people who spend their money and time and capital on trying to persuade politicians
0:38
to their way of seeing the world.
0:41
In Australia and I'm sure elsewhere, political parties raise enormous amounts of money
0:47
from their fundraising bodies which are technically not part of the government.
0:53
But of course, they run these events like big fundraising dinners at which people with
0:58
tons of money, mainly from corporations, can buy a table or even an annual subscription
1:04
and be guaranteed to be sitting next to and meeting with and mingling with ministers
1:09
of the government.
1:12
None of this has to be reported because technically they're not meeting with those people
1:15
in their ministerial capacity, they're just meeting with them as human beings who happen
1:19
to be a fundraiser.
1:21
And the influence of corporations on politicians, on the way that they might vote, the way they
1:26
might think about the stakes in major decisions that they have to make on regulating mining
1:31
companies or airlines or devising taxation or whatever is needless to say, skewed because
1:38
of this arrangement.
1:40
So a gentleman who goes by the name online of Punter's Politics who is a fabulous guy
1:46
and I should explain to non-Australians, Punter in Australia does not mean or does not
1:50
only mean a gambler.
1:52
In this context, it just means a regular joe or punter, it's just a bloke.
1:57
And Punter's Politics is a social media and YouTube phenomenon down under for advocating
2:03
for populist left-wing policies, although he doesn't want to put himself on either side
2:07
of politics, but ultimately it's the kinds of issues that young people care about that
2:13
and it's difficult to understand why governments of both political persuasions don't do more
2:19
about, like taxing our mining companies and creating a sovereign wealth fund like Norway
2:24
does so that we have some of the money from the assets that our country owns instead of
2:30
selling it off to foreign companies and not keeping any of it for ourselves or regulating
2:35
gas so that gas is more affordable or I mean there are a million ways in which Punter's
2:40
politics tries to draw young people's attention to some of the things that we're not talking
2:45
about in the normal media cycle because politicians aren't crazy about talking about them because
2:49
they have a cozy consensus that is in part shaped by their rich friends.
2:54
So Punter gave me a call and was like, what I want to do is do a fundraiser, a gala dinner
3:01
in Canberra, the nation's capital and invite all the politicians to it and my fans, that
3:07
is Punter's politics fans, can buy tables and donate and their donations will hopefully
3:15
go to the hiring of a lobbyist who works on behalf of the people hired directly by Punter's
3:21
politics.
3:22
That was the vision.
3:23
I thought, this is fabulous.
3:24
He said, could you do some kind of like a keynote flagship sort of uncomfortable conversations
3:30
event with some politicians after dinner is served at this fancy sware at a fancy hotel
3:36
in Canberra and I said absolutely, connected Punter with a friend of mine, Osher Ginsburg,
3:42
who is Australia's undoubtedly most expert, successful and famous television host to MC
3:48
the evening, former host of Australian idol of the bachelor and the bachelor rest.
3:54
And unfortunately all of the politicians from the two biggest parties, the Labor Party
4:00
and the Liberal Party, ultimately declined, not a single one bothered to show up, but
4:06
a number of talented and high profile independent politicians and the leader of the national party
4:13
in the Senate, Senator Bridget McKenzie also had the guts to front up and answer my questions
4:20
about money and politics, the influence of corporations and also to butt heads with
4:25
some of the independence.
4:26
So what you're about to hear is a panel in which parliament was actually sitting at the
4:30
time in the evening.
4:31
It runs quite late when parliament is in session.
4:34
So Allegra Spender, who's an independent member of parliament, had to duck out halfway
4:39
through and was replaced by another independent member of parliament, Helen Haynes.
4:43
Senator Bridget McKenzie was there the whole time as was Senator David Pocock, who's an
4:47
independent senator.
4:48
Anyway, I'll introduce them so you'll hear all this, but it's a fascinating way to actually
4:53
try to address some of the issues that underlie the whole antifus, the whole edifice of
5:00
politics the way it is normally reported on in the media.
5:03
So this may be a little bit wonky and down in the weeds, and you know, it's more for
5:07
the political nerds than anybody else, but I loved it.
5:11
I hope you do too.
5:12
Enjoy the mini session of uncomfortable conversations.
5:15
Oh, you should follow Puntas' politics, of course, and check out Oshigin's books, podcasts
5:19
too.
5:20
I'll be fantastic, guys.
5:22
Enjoy the show.
5:23
Here you go.
5:29
I am thrilled to welcome up onto the stage.
5:32
A wonderful man.
5:33
I've known him for a long time.
5:34
He's a dear friend.
5:36
And in my opinion, he's having some of the most important conversations that are happening
5:39
in the public sphere.
5:40
Josh Zeps has been a broadcast for a very long time.
5:43
He spent the majority of his life living in America broadcasting over there.
5:46
He came back here.
5:47
He worked on the ABC for a long time.
5:49
He's since gone solo.
5:50
That's right.
5:51
He's gone indie.
5:52
He is rapidly creating an empire on Substack with uncomfortable conversations, a podcast.
5:59
Well, it's a show.
6:00
You can watch it as well.
6:01
A safe place, a safe space for dangerous ideas.
6:05
And it is a beautiful way to engage with conversations from people that you might go,
6:09
I don't know.
6:10
Maybe.
6:11
Because Josh in such a wonderful caring way has honest and open and wonderful conversations
6:17
that dare I say, give the benefit of doubt and humanity to the people he's speaking to.
6:22
It's amazing.
6:23
And I couldn't be more happy to welcome him here tonight.
6:25
You are going to be a part of a live recording of Uncomfortable Conversations, ladies and
6:29
gentlemen.
6:30
Please welcome Josh Zeps.
6:31
Hey.
6:32
Hey.
6:33
Hey.
6:34
Thank you, Oshar.
6:35
And thanks, Conrad.
6:36
Thanks, all the punters.
6:37
Thanks, everyone, for being here.
6:38
Let's sit without further ado.
6:39
Bring up three guests, Senator Bridget McKenzie.
6:40
The first ever national song.
6:41
Let's sit without further ado.
6:43
Bring up three guests, Senator Bridget McKenzie.
6:46
The first ever national senator for Victoria, former cabinet minister, current leader of the
6:50
National Party in the Senate.
6:51
Thank you for being here.
6:52
Why don't you take the first seat there?
6:56
David Pocock is the first independent ACT senator, and a former rugby great for the
7:00
Wallabies.
7:01
Of course, David.
7:02
You can take the middle and I'm so pleased that Allegra Spender, who apparently is the member
7:08
for Wallara, because that's all that exists in the East and suburbs of Sydney, according
7:12
to someone's born with a golden spoon in his mouth.
7:17
Allegra, if you have to run away and go and vote in the House of Representatives, that
7:21
is fine.
7:22
I will judge you forever and never give you, but that's all right.
7:26
Do all of your microphones work?
7:28
That's awesome.
7:30
Great.
7:31
Winning already.
7:32
So, two independence, obviously, you'll be okay talking about money and politics.
7:37
But certainly, the way that money can infiltrate parties.
7:42
Major party politicians, as we can tell by the number who, regretfully, the invitation
7:49
to be here tonight, tend not to be crazy about, they like talking about their positions
7:54
on things.
7:55
They just don't like talking about how they arrived at those positions and whether or
7:58
not they were convinced by people who had lots of money to arrive at those.
8:04
So, Bridget, why, what are you doing here?
8:11
What am I doing here?
8:12
Well, I believe in showing up, turning up, the great people of Victoria elected me, shout
8:20
out to any Victorians in the House.
8:22
It's here.
8:23
Yeah.
8:24
Give me an amen.
8:25
So, I think it's important if you are in a democracy to participate in it in a real way.
8:31
And, you know, a lot of what you've just said, I'm happy to discuss around what I'm influenced
8:38
by now as a senior shadow minister, but also whilst a senior cabinet minister.
8:45
And the role that fundraises playing a democracy like ours, I've always had an open door policy
8:52
as a minister and even now, today, that if anybody from the Maravan Airport, or, yeah.
9:02
Contacts me because they want to discuss an issue with me, then it's my responsibility
9:08
to actually meet with them irrespective of whether they come to a fundraiser on it.
9:13
I think that's pretty sad reflection on a democracy and the nationals, you know, typically
9:18
represent the poorer communities.
9:20
And so, if we only talk to people who came to fundraisers, they would be only talking
9:28
to most of our partners, our ingredients.
9:30
Thank you for the huge props for coming.
9:32
Thank you.
9:33
I was just realising, actually, Osh has been on my show, and Conrad's been on my show,
9:37
and the legra's been on my show, and David's been on my show.
9:39
There's a theme.
9:40
There's a...
9:41
My judgement.
9:43
No, but, Josh, hey, so I was John Anderson and Alexander Downer and Tony Abbott's coming
9:48
on next week.
9:49
So, there we go.
9:50
All five.
9:51
Thank you for being here.
9:52
All five.
9:53
Oh, I see.
9:54
That was a theme.
9:55
I thought you were saying they went from the conservative side of politics.
9:58
The legra's not a guy, as far as I know.
10:02
So there seems to be...
10:03
Part of the problem, it strikes me with getting our heads around the way that money and politics
10:08
can intersect is that politicians, in addition to being politicians, are also human beings,
10:18
and human beings are vulnerable to persuasion, the people who they surround themselves with,
10:24
and there are subtle ways that powerful and well-connected people can influence the political
10:30
process.
10:31
So I think it might be helpful to just...
10:32
I can think about sort of three ways this shows up.
10:37
One is registered lobbyists, which Conrad's already talked about.
10:41
Their influence and the ability of ministers to exit the government and then immediately
10:45
go straight into lobbying their former government colleagues on behalf of the industry that they
10:49
were regulating yesterday.
10:52
Two, political party fundraising events like this one.
10:56
Normally, if it was run by a political party, then high rollers would be able to buy the
11:02
era of ministers.
11:03
They may not be persuading them.
11:04
They may not be able to bribe them, but they can certainly talk to them.
11:08
And the ministers don't have to reveal it, because they're supposedly there, not in their
11:12
capacity as politicians, but in their capacity as human beings.
11:18
There must be some really fucking charming human beings, because people pay a lot of money
11:24
to go to dinner with them in a non-political capacity.
11:28
And the third way is companies giving officials things, officials who have the power to reward
11:35
those companies.
11:36
Like Bridget and I spoke when I had my ABC show a couple of years ago, and we'll touch
11:41
on this, I hope, about Qantas giving everyone, you know, Parliament, basically Chairman's
11:47
Lounge access.
11:49
And then miraculously, it's in the national interest for the federal government to run
11:52
a protection racket on Qantas.
11:55
So let's just take those one by one, lobbying, David.
12:00
What is a lobbyist?
12:02
According to the rules, or...
12:04
Well, I mean, we ban the term around, like registered lobbyists, unregistered lobbyists,
12:09
is a lobbyist just a random person who is putting their position to a politician.
12:15
What counts as a lobbyist?
12:17
Cricket.
12:26
I mean, I think broadly it's someone who is coming to talk about a specific issue that
12:31
either affects them or people that they are representing.
12:34
And, you know, I think my frustration with talking about something like this is that
12:40
the nuance just gets lost because, as you know, the media just wants a headline that
12:43
I don't actually talk about, the nuance of the issue.
12:46
I think lobbying is a really important part of our democracy.
12:49
If you are dealing with a bill or an issue you want to hear from people who are being
12:54
affected by it, they have a certain, you know, when you're meeting with them, like, clearly,
12:59
this is coming from this angle, but that's important because they are generally in the
13:04
weeds on legislation, they've read it, they've consulted with their members, or whoever
13:08
might be.
13:09
And you want to hear those very reviews.
13:11
I actually think lobbying is a good thing.
13:13
The thing I take exception to is just how murky it all is in Parliament House.
13:18
And I think it's the people's house.
13:20
There should be full transparency about who has access, who gave them access, and who
13:25
they're meeting with.
13:26
And then we can actually judge the decisions that are made and see what people that they
13:31
heard from and the government made the decision.
13:33
And allegories are always clear to you as a parliamentarian, exactly what the interest
13:37
is of the person who is lobbying you.
13:40
I mean, is the, in other words, is the transparency only between the politicians and the punters,
13:45
or is it also between lobbyists and the politicians?
13:47
Look, I think it's mainly transparent.
13:49
I'd say actually the parliamentary sports club aside, because I think that's been an
13:55
example where it hasn't been very transparent, why certain people are included in the parliamentary
14:00
sports and some people aren't, and that has been lobbying and money and politics.
14:05
But I'd say that, I'd agree very much with Dave, where Dave said about, you do need
14:09
to hear from all sides.
14:10
To be honest, what I try and do when I look at legislation is to say, well, who thinks
14:15
what, and make sure I talk to people with different views, and that's really important.
14:19
But I think the transparency is really important.
14:21
And I was actually speaking to someone who was very senior in a state government.
14:26
And he said he didn't realise when there was a particular piece of legislation up until
14:33
they actually, a lot transparent ministerial diaries, he didn't realise how many people from
14:38
this organisation have gone, how many ministers this organisation had gone to speak to.
14:44
And so when you're assessing an issue in government, to know that your entire cabinet has
14:52
been spoken to somebody about this issue from a particular perspective, that's relevant.
14:58
So this is about trying to get transparency about who's having those conversations, who's
15:03
in the room and how it's being done.
15:07
Most of the time, I think it is, you're pretty clear on who is lobbying you, I think.
15:12
But I think it is just that transparency, even for politicians.
15:16
So they realise who else, their colleagues are all talking to too, and see, maybe you're
15:19
all talking to the same person, and actually you need to have some more diverse perspectives.
15:23
That's interesting.
15:24
I hadn't thought about the transparency within the Chamber itself.
15:27
Because I'd sort of roll my eyes a bit when we talk about transparency for the public,
15:31
because yeah, if you're a journalist for the Australian financial review, then you want
15:35
transparency, and it probably matters a lot to understand exactly who has been talking
15:39
to whom.
15:40
But for a regular person, they just want their government to do the right thing.
15:44
They don't want to do the wrong thing, and then also know why it's doing the wrong thing.
15:48
But it's helpful to understand that there's even a lack of transparency in you as an
15:53
independent, understanding how exactly the government has arrived at a particular conclusion
15:57
in a bill, because you don't know who they've been meeting with.
16:00
The Parliamentary Sports Club just came up, David.
16:02
What's the Parliamentary Sports Club?
16:04
There's a Parliamentary Sports Club at Parliament House.
16:11
It's as weird set up, because there is both a Department of Parliamentary Services run
16:17
what you'd probably call the Sports Club.
16:19
You know, a gym, they run the courts, the fields, but then separately this Parliamentary
16:24
Sports Club has been set up that I think has done really good work.
16:29
Facilitate support amongst parliamentarians.
16:31
It's a great way to get to know each other, get some exercise done before work can be
16:36
very long days inside, and I've really enjoyed engaging them in the last term of Parliament.
16:43
And there was this event where we had running for resilience, the great Canberra Group
16:49
come to Parliament and do an event, and the big gambling lobby put that on LinkedIn.
16:56
It's kind of as if they were somehow involved in it, and someone brought that up with my
17:02
team and we're kind of looking at this guy.
17:03
This is very strange.
17:04
They started digging into it and turns out that they have been paying the Parliamentary
17:10
Sports Club to come and play Parliamentary sport with politicians.
17:17
Again, I probably, I probably, the nuance of it, I probably wouldn't have minded if
17:21
Oldmate was lobbying that day to just rocked up and did some exercise, like, sure, place
17:26
ball was something you'd scream at, but the fact that he was paying for access at the
17:31
whole thing just built yuck, and the more politicians I spoke to, none really knew that was
17:36
the case.
17:37
And so I raised questions at some estimates and got kicked out of the club, which was
17:43
funny, because I hadn't even played with it.
17:44
They need you more than that.
17:45
And because everyone wants to play sport with David Hokeoff, and then, you know, the major
17:50
attraction loss.
17:51
It is understandable that you would be kicked out of the Parliamentary Sports Club.
17:55
Just scored me a netball, so.
17:56
That's true.
17:57
I do take him down at netball.
18:00
Look, he's not as sporty as Anthony Albanese, so we understand why David doesn't belong
18:06
in a sports club.
18:07
I don't think there's anyone in Parliament who could beat you in an arm wrestle, except
18:13
from a calia cash.
18:17
So now that he's, is it right that now that the sports club is registered as a lobbying
18:24
group that basically no longer, so when it was, did that make the Prime Minister the president
18:30
of a lobbying group?
18:32
For a brief period, yes.
18:35
Again, like this is, so they had been registered as a lobbying organisation for many years
18:39
under a different name, and then they changed, officially changed their name to the Parliamentary
18:43
Sports Club, updated it.
18:45
This whole thing happened, and so then they sorted advice from the Attorney General's Department
18:49
who overseas the lobbyist registered the official one, and the advice was, you're not
18:53
actually a lobbying organisation, which again, like, you're taking money from corporations
18:59
and lobby groups to provide access to politicians, like, surely that's covered by some sort
19:05
of lobbying code of conduct, I don't know.
19:07
It's so loose.
19:08
Pigeon.
19:09
Well, yeah, I think it's very murky and has been murky for a long time.
19:15
I'm co-captain of the Parliamentary Netball team, and we were outside of, outside...
19:21
Why does that get alive?
19:23
It's a great thing to do!
19:25
I'm a lot slower than I used to be, but David's right, this has been murky for a long time,
19:31
and the Netball Club sat outside this club for a reason.
19:36
So this club also takes journalists, all-play politicians, the press versus the politicians,
19:44
they go on rugby trips and cricket trips, tennis trips to Wimbledon, lords, rugby
19:52
world cup, et cetera.
19:54
So there's a real issue with who is having access to these MPs, and how is this business
20:01
model being funded?
20:02
So I think the work you did was fabulous in uncovering that, David, well done.
20:09
So, oh, Legri, is it that lobbying is necessary?
20:17
And I can accept that we do hear the argument that big companies need access to politicians
20:23
because it's in the national interest also for companies to do well.
20:27
I mean, everyone would appreciate that it is important for a CEO to be able to put their
20:32
case to a government, but then why do they need to pay?
20:39
You know, it strikes me that you only need to pay people to do things that they wouldn't
20:44
do for free.
20:47
Right, it's a cabinet minister's job to consider all views, they're getting paid a salary
20:52
to deliberate even handedly.
20:55
If someone else is paying them for their consideration, then either the minister isn't doing their
21:02
job, or the payment is intended to subvert even-handed deliberation.
21:07
Look, I don't, you know, I don't.
21:13
That's a great question, and I think the point is, is a right one, is that what you need
21:18
to do and to be clear on lobbyists, you know, you also have the environmental movement
21:21
and others.
21:22
You know, really important community groups come and talk to you in the same way, lobby
21:26
you on pieces of legislation.
21:28
That's really, really important, as well as, you know, the people in the punters, in
21:33
sort of certainly in my area, but I think, you know, you're right to say, you know, why
21:37
should they be paying because this is actually our job?
21:40
I think this has been one of the biggest areas, I think, of murkiness in terms of electoral
21:44
donations, has been the sort of fundraising sort of dinners, these, you know, dinner clubs
21:51
or these things that have been set up by the, I'll be honest, by the party systems where
21:57
there are all these money changes hands, and often it's not hard to be, have the same
22:01
disclosure levels as other sorts of donations, it's one big murky mess.
22:06
And just before we get to that, because I'm glad you've done the segue into the fundraising
22:12
dinners, but this question, Bridget, of the revolving, or of, you know, ministers being
22:16
able to go in and become lobbyists, the argument that you hear for that is, well, if they
22:23
need to be able to get a job after they've been a politician, they wouldn't be able to
22:29
get a job, supposedly, if they weren't getting a job as a lobbyist, you have a double
22:35
degree in teaching and applying science, how in comp, would you have to bid and not be able
22:41
to get a job as anything but a lobbyist?
22:44
Well, I think when you leave politics, depending on the level you get to in Parliament, but,
22:52
you know, you do get a lot of skills along the way, particularly you've had to run a
22:56
department and have a senior portfolio, et cetera, and sit on the expenditure review committee.
23:03
You do get a lot of skills, but Alistair and Paul and I were talking about this, hey guys,
23:10
at our table, because literally when you are sitting in those senior subcommittees of
23:16
Cabinet, dealing with literally top secret information, state secrets, there needs to
23:23
be assurance that you're not trading in that post-apolitical career.
23:30
I think in the national interest, that is a sense looking to happen.
23:34
But outside of, thank you, one person, I don't know about that, because that is what happens.
23:41
And because your independence, that won't, will never be a scenario that you guys will
23:46
be in, but for the parties that are involved in government, that is a literal consideration
23:51
when you leave politics.
23:52
So will I be back at universities, lecturing as a proud, out-and-proud conservative?
23:58
I look forward to getting my old job back, but hopefully I won't be shut out.
24:03
It is, I think it's a serious and legitimate concern that senior cabinet ministers aren't
24:10
able to hold positions where that information can be shared post-politics for a period
24:19
of time.
24:20
What's a fair period, Derek?
24:23
For the caravan to move on, I think it depends, whether it's 10 years or whether it's two
24:30
to five, I think that's...
24:32
But it should be at least an electoral cycle, maybe until the election after next to something.
24:38
I think that's sensible, but should you be locked out of senior roles in public companies
24:45
etc. outside your former portfolio area, I don't think that would be fair.
24:50
Right.
24:51
What do you reckon, David?
24:53
I think it's currently 18 months, is the period around that?
25:01
I mean, clearly this is a big problem, and I think one of the other problems, which I
25:06
think is harder to, potentially hard to regulate, is stuff, because they often know more,
25:13
more than the politician, and there's also a revolving door of staff, and you see them
25:23
turn off.
25:24
So, this is something we have to look at.
25:26
Now, how could you look at that, because presumably if you bend staff from getting jobs
25:29
in the private sector, you're never going to be able to get any decent staff?
25:32
This is a really hard thing, and you know, with politicians, I think Australians don't
25:36
want to pay a handsome pension to foreign politicians, and so what do you do with people
25:44
who spend a decade or two in public life, and then get out of it?
25:53
What are their options?
25:54
I mean, is there a difference between them going on into a role in which they're lobby
25:59
and government on behalf of a corporation, and then going into a role in which they're
26:03
working inside a company, in which they're portfolio gave them expertise, and simply advising
26:08
that company to enhance the well-being of that company, but without the interface with
26:16
their colleagues?
26:17
Potentially, but you've got to remember we have a system where the government relations
26:22
team for Qantas Woodside, Santos, name of big company, aren't lobbyists.
26:27
They're in-house lobbyists, who get us...
26:30
Greenpeace.
26:31
They get one of these lots of passes from politicians and the way they go, so...
26:36
Right.
26:37
This is a hard thing, but...
26:38
This is why I asked what a lobbyist is, because it is very confusing.
26:41
Like a lobbyist is also just a person who works in a company, who wants the best for that
26:44
company, and tries to pull every string that they can, you know?
26:48
And I think I'm going to come back to transparency.
26:50
I know you were saying, oh, you know, that's just another, you know, how serious or important
26:54
that is, but I think particularly when it comes to staff, it's really hard, because you
26:58
want to get the best people you possibly can, and you want people who have experience
27:02
of the real world, of business, you know, of environmental areas to come and work for
27:07
you, and then also to be able to get a job afterwards.
27:10
But I think if you have greater transparency of who's in the room, where they come from,
27:15
then we have a greater chance of actually managing this.
27:17
This is why, you know, ministerial diaries and transparency of lobbying, I think is at
27:21
least part of the solution of trying to hold this stuff to account.
27:25
It's imperfect.
27:26
I just want to raise that major corporations aren't the only people with lobbying classes,
27:33
right?
27:34
So, Salvation Army has to have a lobbying path, Mission Australia, Oxfam, all of these
27:42
fabulous NGOs that are doing wonderful work across our democracy also have to have lobbyist
27:49
passes.
27:50
And it is an individual decision as MPs about who's lobbying form we sign.
27:57
I've only got one, and it's the Salvation Army, because I took a decision many years ago
28:03
that I didn't want to be responsible for that.
28:06
And that's, whereas other people have are very much involved in signing passes, for their
28:11
own individual philosophical reasons.
28:14
So, I think that's something that has to consider as well, where the parliament has
28:18
largest hours.
28:19
We all come there with our own view of how our democracy should work and our best way
28:26
to engage in that.
28:27
If you're just tuning into the live stream, let me just tell people where Senator Bridget
28:32
McKenzie of the Victorian Nationals is live of the National Party in the Senate, independent
28:38
Senator David Pocock from the ACT and independent member of parliament, Allegro Spender, who represents
28:43
Wentworth in Sydney, I'm Josh Sepson.
28:46
This is a mini episode of Uncomfortable Conversation, which you can get on all podcast platforms
28:50
and on Allegro.
28:51
Allegro, well I'm about, I'm going to, to myself, so excited when you ask me any difficult
28:56
questions.
28:57
I have to go ahead and speak on freedom of information in the House, so I'll see you
29:00
very soon.
29:01
Wonderful to see you again.
29:02
Thank you, Allegro.
29:03
Let's hear it for Allegro Spender.
29:07
The pressing matters of state back in.
29:10
So Allegro mentioned these, dinner, this one, but the ones that are run by the parties.
29:18
So the parties have, if you don't know, these fund raising arms, Labor has this federal
29:25
Labor business forum, the Libs have the Australian business forum, and then that's have the
29:30
National Policy Forum, and the parties can raise maybe five times as much money from
29:37
running events where people pay to have access to ministers or senior politicians.
29:44
Then they do from political donations.
29:47
So a lot of people might remember that there was a scandal in 2022 when gambling executives
29:53
from the responsible wagering Australia lobby group hosted the communications minister,
29:58
Michelle Roland, a lavish lunch for her birthday in a private dining room at one of Melbourne's
30:04
best restaurants, while Labor was considering how to deal with gambling advertising.
30:11
And then this August Labor was in the steaming part of, you know, what, again, because the
30:17
grand ballroom of the Fullerton Hotel in Sydney was all a flutter with four to five hundred
30:22
hardworking Aussie battlers who'd paid $18,000 for a table, or up to 110 grand for an annual
30:31
subscription to the federal Labor business forum.
30:35
Conrad, are you about to talk about exactly this?
30:39
I'm just going to stop in another politician.
30:41
Oh, fabulous.
30:43
Great.
30:44
Hey.
30:45
Welcome.
30:46
Welcome.
30:47
So if you paid 110 grand a year to the federal Labor business forum, up to 110 grand,
31:01
there are other, you know, more reasonable prices for the lolier among us, then you get
31:06
discounted tickets to these things and get this, you're actually allowed to submit in advance
31:12
a short list of ministers who you would like to be seated with at your table.
31:17
But the party doesn't say that there's going to be a minister seated at your table because
31:21
that would imply that you're there for a political reason, but you're actually just there because
31:24
you really like the person, remember, because you don't have to declare this.
31:28
So they're just VIP guests, they're just VIP guests who happen to be ministers in the
31:34
government.
31:36
We know who went to this function in August, the Prime Minister, the Home Affairs Minister
31:42
Tony Burke, the Social Services Minister, Tania Plybosek, the Industry Minister, Tim Ayers,
31:47
the Energy and Climate Change Minister, Chris Bowen, the Infrastructure Minister, Catherine
31:50
King, the Defence Industry Minister, Pat Conroy, how do we know all these people were there?
31:56
The only way we know they were there is because they were photographed going into the hotel.
32:02
There is no duty of disclosure about who was there, who they met with, how much the
32:09
people who paid to sit at their table paid, or what they talked about.
32:15
When journalists from the Australian financial review asked the ministers officers if they
32:19
went to this dinner and who they met with, they got this reply from communications minister
32:27
Annika Wells' staff and I quote, I've decided that any document which may exist and which
32:32
would be relevant to your request would not be an official document of a minister.
32:37
They're just people.
32:40
They're just people who other people will spend $110,000 to have dinner with.
32:48
So how charming are these people that people are willing to pay, that kind of money?
32:55
I hang on, are we getting swapped out?
32:58
No, I think she left a lobbying pass, I think, Pete, wasn't it?
33:06
What do we do about this?
33:08
Well, how charming was the question?
33:11
There's actually a bunch of ministers downstairs having dinner, you could ask them right now.
33:16
I thought they were coming up here, but they weren't.
33:21
I think they're very charming people, but it's really clear, isn't it, that folks aren't
33:27
going to expensive dinners to sit down and have a conversation about anything other than
33:35
what they're truly interested in influencing government about.
33:40
Each minister is, in fact, a member of parliament or a senator.
33:43
They have opportunities to talk to people out in the community.
33:49
They have officers where people could access those ministers in their constituency, but
33:56
every day Australians are not paying just shy of $16,900 to go to dinner with a minister.
34:03
And there's a reason for that, because if you pay that money, that money is going into
34:07
the coffers of a major party, and it's going into those coffers to raise funds for elections.
34:13
So there's a really clear reason why people are showing up.
34:17
They want to influence this.
34:19
They want to have the ear of the minister, and that's a really effective way for them
34:24
to do it.
34:25
Thank you.
34:26
Bridget, the cynical explanation, the sort of cartoon cut out version of what happens here
34:31
is that some evil corporate titan whispers in the ear of the minister, and then the minister
34:37
is willing to do whatever they think because they had a fancy, we're treated to a fancy dinner.
34:43
What would be much of a minister that did that?
34:45
What is more insidious is what you and I were talking about in 2023, which is, what I'm
34:52
using as an example here, which is that politicians, as we've already established, being humans,
35:00
have a worldview that is shaped, at least in part, by the worldview of the people who
35:05
are around them and what makes them comfortable and things that seem reasonable to them.
35:11
So it's quite easy for a person's conception of the national interest, actually without
35:15
any cynicism on their part, to be shaped by the circles that they swim in.
35:21
When, do you want to describe what you shared the sort of investigation into the context?
35:26
That's a David.
35:27
Yes, I did get to share that.
35:28
That was an instance where it was clear that the government seemingly genuinely believed
35:35
that it was in the, maybe not genuinely, you're shaking your head, David, it wasn't genuine.
35:39
No.
35:40
The government claimed to believe that running a protection racket for quantists was in
35:45
the national interest, and every single time I asked, and I spoke to, Bridget was then
35:51
the shadowed politician still am.
35:53
Still am?
35:54
Minister, still are, my apologies, and we were constantly putting in requests from the ABC to
36:02
the transportation minister and simply asking things like, is there any difference between
36:08
the national interest and quantists as interests?
36:12
And she would send me transcripts of door stops that said things like, journalist, what
36:18
is our national interest as far as the Qatar decision?
36:20
Catherine King, I'm not going to comment any further on that, to which I, how the government
36:28
defines the national interest?
36:31
The public does have a right to know, and you were a very good journalist to follow up
36:36
with that minister.
36:37
We know that quantists has wielded so much power within Parliament House over transport
36:44
ministers of both political persuasions for a very, very long time.
36:51
But because of the Senate inquiry, we were able to get up, and David's vote was critical
36:56
to getting that up.
36:57
We were able to disclose that the Qatar decision I believe was made because of the political
37:06
influence of quantists.
37:09
We were able to make sure Alan Joyce's golden parachute was cut.
37:13
We were able to get changes to the board of quantists as a result of disclosing the behaviour
37:18
of that organisation.
37:21
And through another Senate inquiry, we were able to get over $100 million of COVID flight
37:26
credits returned to Australian consumers because of the political pressure.
37:31
We were able to put on that core press because of the way our parliament operated.
37:35
And as I recall, one of the issues questions I was getting asked was, hang on, aren't you
37:41
a member of the Chairman's Cloud Blake?
37:43
Isn't that a conflict of interest?
37:45
Like, if it was a conflict for me, I would not be taking this organisation down like we
37:52
have.
37:53
That's the difference.
37:54
And I think that comes down to personal integrity and character.
37:58
There's a truth line in the West Wing.
38:02
When someone's asking, I think the Republican presidential candidate, you know, has
38:10
had exactly one of these sort of things with an oil or gas supplier and he said, if you
38:14
can't take their money and then screw them over, you don't deserve to be in this job.
38:19
And I kind of have taken that, you know, I'm not trying because you're, you know, how
38:26
do we should ask the protesters about this, you know, how should we have membership
38:30
of the Quantists' Chairman's Lounge?
38:33
I think we have to be careful and have the character to stand up to power, rather than just
38:40
pretend.
38:41
Absolutely.
38:42
I have no problem with that.
38:43
But I think you can't, I really think you can't have a bobby trail on this stuff.
38:47
I really don't.
38:49
And I think the punters may be agreeing on that.
38:51
I mean, what would you say Dave?
38:53
I would.
38:54
So, so elections are expensive, right, to the substantive point.
39:00
Elections are expensive.
39:01
We saw climate 200 spend, you know, okay, no worries.
39:07
I thought it was a safe space, I thought it was a safe space.
39:13
Ladies, Bridget, finish the thought.
39:15
So my point is that there, we are in a democracy and all sides in our democracy, participating
39:23
in that.
39:24
So you can't critique one side, fronting up to the National Party fundraisers or the
39:29
Liberal Party fundraisers or the Labor Party fundraisers and they're not being prepared
39:34
to accept the fact that millions of dollars have been spent on election campaigns in certain
39:41
seats like Kauper, like Kalea, all disclosed.
39:45
Yeah, but Helen, this is the best way of bridging, I think it's about the disclosure.
39:52
It's about the disclosure and the transparency.
39:58
I, elections are expensive and I think it's important that everyone, all punters, left,
40:06
right, centre, interested punters like tonight, disinterested punters that we have to spend
40:12
a lot of money to getting their attention and all sides of politics have to do that.
40:17
And there's got to be a way some way to fund that.
40:19
I don't disagree, there does need to be a way to fund it.
40:23
We just need to be honest with punters, left, right, centre, interested, not interested.
40:29
We just need to make the rules fair and equal for everyone so they're disclosed.
40:34
I mean, that's the point in tonight, right?
40:36
Like, dinners where that influence is not disclosed.
40:40
Yeah, and I would just add also that whilst I applaud your courage, Bridget, in having taken
40:49
that fight on, it was also massively politically advantageous for you to do so.
40:54
So, I mean, it was a...
40:56
That was so.
40:57
...you were the shadow transport minister and the transport minister was in deep shit.
41:01
And so it was like a great deal.
41:03
Exactly, that's right.
41:05
It was set up for a parliament of independence.
41:07
And you did a good job on that.
41:09
Yes.
41:10
No, I'm not saying.
41:12
I'm saying it was absolutely the right thing to do, but it doesn't negate the effect on
41:19
the parliament as a whole from there being inducements.
41:23
Just the fact that one person is able to say, I don't give a stuff about my chairman's
41:27
membership because it is my job now to go in and fight against the hand that's feeding
41:33
me.
41:34
It doesn't mean that the hand should be feeding everybody the way that it is.
41:37
But again, to Helen's point, that's all disclosed.
41:40
All of our chairman's memberships are disclosed.
41:42
Yeah.
41:43
I mean, David, should a big company that, like, should it be just giving people shit like
41:50
that?
41:51
I fly a lot of miles to get my Emerald status, you know?
41:54
I disagree.
41:55
I think it's something that has been normalized, that if you translate that into a, so say the
42:04
banks gave politicians a discount on their mortgage, they would be pretty outraged.
42:11
And I think, you know, part of this is someone said they don't have mortgages.
42:15
Huh?
42:16
I just said someone's, they don't have mortgages.
42:18
I've just got multiple, many mortgages.
42:22
I think one of the things we need to be talking about is, and I guess it's kind of to bridge
42:27
its point.
42:28
Like, there are real conflicts of interest, but I think perceived conflicts of interest
42:34
in politics, particularly where we are at this, at this point in time, with politics and
42:39
declining trust in politicians and institutions, we have to actually deal with these perceived
42:44
conflicts of interest.
42:45
And as politicians say, we're going to hold ourselves to a higher standard to try and rebuild
42:49
the trust because, you know, when you're in turbulent times, you desperately need institutions
42:57
that people can trust, to look to and trust.
42:59
And I think it's the same with politics.
43:01
We have a huge task on our hands to try and rebuild trust in it.
43:07
And you know, I think for me, it's not a huge sacrifice, surely, to give up a Chairman's
43:13
Lounge membership in exchange for that.
43:18
I mean, it's pretty good in there, though.
43:22
Do we have time for a couple of questions from the punters before we go?
43:25
I know we're out of time, but is that OK?
43:27
Can I ask you these questions?
43:29
All right.
43:30
We texted them to you.
43:31
Yeah, I've got them.
43:32
Yeah.
43:33
I'm just asking if I'm going to go over time.
43:37
So the punters have been asking questions, and they have also completely unrelatedly
43:42
been pledging donations.
43:44
And it just so happens that the two best questions are the two highest donations, totally
43:51
coincidentally, no conflict whatsoever.
43:54
This is the equivalent of the Chairman's Lounge right here.
43:57
Mr Andy Lee has pledged $300 to David Polcock, not to David Polcock, to ask the question
44:03
of David Polcock.
44:05
What do you see as the most viable political route to securing greater transparency from
44:09
this future government?
44:13
I think political pressure, and that is cold hard numbers in the parliament.
44:18
Like, the thing I've seen is that things are impossible until you have a majority of
44:24
politicians who want to do something, and then it happens tomorrow.
44:29
And so I think more and more Australians raising their voice, but also voting for people
44:34
who are going to get in there and actually do what they say they're going to do, and
44:39
not just say one thing, an opposition get in there and just enjoy the perks.
44:43
So yeah, I mean, I think if you look at what happened in Canberra here at the election
44:49
in Beane, the entire electorate of Beane is here, you know, that places pressure.
45:00
On the Labour Party to actually deliver, and I think we're going to see more and more
45:03
of that, if people aren't acting in line with what Australians want.
45:07
A question from a punter named Tash Poole who pledges $100 totally coincidentally, Senator
45:11
McKenzie, will Australia ever see the protection of animals in the environment, except the
45:16
heart of national policy, not as obstacles to economic growth, but as vital foundations
45:21
for our prosperity, food security and well-being?
45:24
Sorry, I don't quite, can I just say that?
45:27
Tash.
45:28
I get it.
45:29
The question of animals in the environment.
45:33
Absolutely.
45:34
We need triple bottom line, and I think animals, we have very high standards of protection
45:39
of animals, and we have some of the toughest environmental standards in the world.
45:45
So oh, net zero.
45:47
Oh, net zero.
45:48
But that wasn't the question.
45:49
Net zero wasn't about net zero.
45:51
But I'm very happy to talk about our cheaper, better fairer plan for lowering emissions
45:56
here in Australia, that the national party announced this week.
46:00
But by the groans in the audience, I guess I want to go back to the bush to get a welcoming
46:06
smile on that one.
46:07
Well, just that one.
46:08
I mean, it is interesting as being a national in the battle, I guess, between environmentalism,
46:16
in terms of what farmers and rural communities need, in terms of what they're seeing with
46:20
their water, in terms of salination, all that sort of stuff, this is the need also to.
46:24
And I mean, our agricultural is now farming community on the front line of being first conservationists.
46:33
Instead of being told that they're trashing the land, our farmers, often intergenerational
46:38
are the ones that are caring for the country and preparing to hand it on for the next generation.
46:44
And I think it's sick and tired of a lot of Australians bagging out people on the land
46:51
as if they're trashing it.
46:53
They're the ones trying to protect the waterways, protect the soils, regenerate and reforest
47:01
a lot of our land.
47:03
But we also produce a lot of food and we're a beautiful producer of clean, green food that
47:09
we export globally.
47:11
We export 80% of what we actually grow in this country.
47:14
We need to be proud of that instead of trying to shut down our sheep industry, our cattle
47:18
industry, etc.
47:21
So I'm a former agriculture minister of this country.
47:25
I think we need to be very proud of the way we produce food, the way we care for our animals
47:29
in our land, unlike so many other countries around the world.
47:34
Our farmers are doing a great job.
47:36
Helen, do you want to wrap us up with a final word?
47:38
I just wanted to back Bridget in on being careful not to demonise farmers and I don't think
47:45
folks in this room are trying to do that.
47:48
I think really the first environmentalists in Australia, of course, were Aboriginal and
47:52
Torres Strait Islander people and they still are.
47:57
And I see fifth generation farming family myself.
48:04
I know that farmers plant thousands of trees, I mean hundreds of thousands of trees, heavily
48:10
engaged in land care which has been one of the most successful citizen science environmental
48:16
projects of our nation and one that has been exported all over the world.
48:21
But we can't deny that we all need to do more to protect our precious native species.
48:30
In my own electorate, I was just out recently on a farm where they're creating wildlife
48:35
corridors with the local land care group to protect this with parrot and endangered species.
48:41
Before the house right now, we are debating in fact it's just where I ran from while I was
48:45
late getting here, the EPBC Reform Bill's huge amount of legislation desperately needed
48:52
reform to protect nature.
48:55
I think there's some really good things in that legislation which would satisfy most people
49:00
who care deeply about nature but there's some fundamental gaps and loopholes that I'm concerned
49:05
about too.
49:07
And there around things like ministerial discretion when there is a question of national interest.
49:16
Now I don't belong to the camp that says we shouldn't have ministerial discretion at all.
49:20
I don't believe that.
49:22
I think it's again coming back to the transparency of those decisions so that everybody knows
49:30
why.
49:31
Minister May have made a decision contrary to that of the best available evidence science
49:38
and indeed the recommendations of the new EPA, if it's in fact legislated, explain why
49:45
that's the case and I think we need tighter definitions about what the national interest
49:49
actually is.
49:50
So I could go chapter in verse into a whole lot more about that but to that question it's
49:55
a really important one.
49:56
We are debating it right now and just also picking up on Bridget's points around regional
50:02
communities.
50:03
I represent a magnificent huge regional community.
50:08
People care deeply about nature but they're also really concerned that they want to be at
50:12
the table early when it comes to development and approvals, whether that be a grid scale
50:18
renewable energy project or whether it's a housing project or something else.
50:22
So I think one of the things I'm talking to the minister about is ensuring that we
50:26
get early meaningful best practice community consultation in our standards so that punters,
50:33
whoever they are, whatever they think, have the opportunity to get involved and to be part
50:39
of that early decision making.
50:41
Helen, thank you David, thank you Bridget.
50:44
Thank you so much.
50:45
You should follow on comfortable conversations on any podcast platform for more conversations
50:50
about some of the most important issues of the 21st century that people find it tricky
50:54
to talk about.
50:55
Coming up, punters are going to be giving out a very special award to someone in the room.
51:01
First enjoy your dessert.
51:02
Thank you.