An Ethical Australia? Accountability, Ethics and Leadership

Panellist %
Ken Henry 24
Simon Longstaff 22
Dani Larkin 20
Tanya Plibersek 19
Dave Sharma 16

HAMISH MACDONALD

Corruption, ethics, and why none of us seem to trust our politicians. It’s great to see you. Welcome to Q+A.

I’m with Alan Marel, who’s got our first question tonight. Here to answer your questions: lawyer and Bundjalung woman Dani Larkin; Liberal member for Wentworth, Dave Sharma: former treasury secretary Ken Henry; the Shadow Minister for Education, Tanya Plibersek; and Simon Longstaff from The Ethics Centre. Please make all of them feel welcome.

Alright, Alan, what’s your question?

ALAN MAREL

My question – once upon a time, members of parliament were stood down for misleading parliament. Now, obfuscation, refusal to answer questions, secrecy and outright lies are commonplace and go unpunished. Grants and funding are given in a partisan manner without tender, without a paper trail, and in some cases without even being applied for. Rudeness, lack of respect and petulant behaviour has become the norm from the government, particularly during Question Time, and misleading advertising, deception and outright lies dominate pre-election claims and advertising. Why don’t we make truth and transparency mandatory to guarantee the integrity and reputation of our politicians?

HAMISH MACDONALD

Simon Longstaff?

SIMON LONGSTAFF, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE ETHICS CENTRE

Wow. Well, I think we should, because I think, when politicians lie to the public, it undermines the quality of the consent that we give. You cannot give informed consent if what has been proposed to you is untrue. And that’s just part of the litany of things that you referred to, where I think what we have to be concerned about is ensuring that those who exercise public power do so exclusively in the public interest, and I think what’s been really upsetting a lot of Australians is that that’s not been happening. Too often they’ve seen it being a partial exercise of power for private interests, private political interests, but I think the deepest thing of all which has troubled people is that they feel that in every aspect of their lives, they’re held accountable, even for the slightest error that they might make, whereas those people who have those considerable privileges of elected office in particular – but not just them – seem never to be truly accountable for the things that they do.

HAMISH MACDONALD

Dave Sharma?

DAVE SHARMA, LIBERAL MEMBER FOR WENTWORTH

Well, look, a question like Alan’s is a sad one to hear, I guess, as a politician, but I can...I know where it’s coming from – I’ve heard it from voters myself. I would say this, though – I think, look, I’m quite new to parliament, I’m quite new to politics, and most of the people I know in this building, across...on all sides of the building, across the aisles, are here for the right reasons and to do a good job. But government is difficult and politics is difficult. It’s really about the trade-off between competing priorities and trying to, you know, settle competing interests, often enough. And...you know, the fundamental truth – you’re not going to keep all of the people happy all of the time.

But I would say that I’ve been pretty impressed with how the Australian system has performed through COVID-19. This has been a stress test for a large number of countries, and you’d have to say Australian institutions – and that doesn’t just mean the federal parliament and the federal government, it means chief health officers, it means epidemiologists, it means front-line health workers, it means police and law enforcement – they’ve all held up really well. I think we should be proud of the job they’ve done. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be seeking to improve our system and the integrity of our system, but I don’t think we should be too despondent about the sort of position we’re in.

HAMISH MACDONALD

Alan, he’s right, isn’t he? When it came to the pressure test of this critical moment, we could trust the bulk of our politicians, couldn’t we?

ALAN MAREL

As far as COVID goes, we’ve handled it incredibly well compared to the rest of the world, but now we’re using COVID as a convenient excuse for not having a national integrity commission – we can’t possibly chew gum and walk at the same time – but it doesn’t stop the government from introducing legislation that they are politically tied to, like making university fees more expensive. Why is a national integrity commission, that people want, that would keep the government honest, so difficult, but other legislation is not?

HAMISH MACDONALD

Tanya Plibersek, let me put that to you. Obviously, a national integrity commission has been promised. Clearly, it hasn’t been anywhere near delivered.

TANYA PLIBERSEK, SHADOW MINISTER FOR EDUCATION

No. It’s very disappointing. I think you could fairly say there’s a three-year delay on this since the government promised it. I think it’s very important that we have a national integrity commission, and a strong one, not a toothless tiger, but also that we support the other organisations that hold public figures like me to account – the Australian National Audit Office, a free and diverse media – that means proper funding for the ABC and it means media diversity. We need all of that.

But underneath those mechanisms, rules and laws, we also need to attract and keep people in public life who genuinely want to do the right thing for their community, not just enrich themselves. I really like Anthony Trollope and his novels. He wrote a series of novels called the Palliser series, and he had this fictional English prime minister who said to his son one day, “Son, if the best you can do is... When you’re defending yourself, if the best you can do is, ‘What I did was not illegal,’ you have so missed the point of what is expected of someone in your position.” And I think that’s really important, too.

We absolutely need a tough cop on the beat. We absolutely need to properly fund and resource and give power to these organisations, but we also need a bedrock of ethics and behaviour in our public life that means that we’re not relying on being caught out by the rules or the police when we’re doing the wrong thing, but that we just don’t do the wrong thing in the first place. Like, it’s not rocket science.

HAMISH MACDONALD

Dave Sharma, I just want to be clear about this – do you think we should have a national integrity commission?

DAVE SHARMA

Absolutely. I mean, you know, we’re committed to doing it and we will deliver one. You know, I’m not...

HAMISH MACDONALD

So why don’t we have one yet? Why can’t we even see the legislation that you are going to put forward? Because it was promised at the end of last year, at the start of this year... I’m just unclear as to why we can’t see it.

DAVE SHARMA

Well, we put out a discussion paper in December of 2018. We took submissions in response to that discussion paper. Draft legislation has been prepared and it will be released in a matter of weeks, and then we’ll have consultation around that.

TANYA PLIBERSEK

Well, it was ready in December.

DAVE SHARMA

So this is going to happen.

TANYA PLIBERSEK

It was ready in December – we know it was ready in December – so using COVID as an excuse, as the Prime Minister has done, just doesn’t cut it. It’s just... Release the legislation. We don’t even have to debate it in parliament today. We can still have people looking at it, considering it, debating it, in the public, determining whether this is strong enough. What really worries me...

SIMON LONGSTAFF

There’s a bill...

TANYA PLIBERSEK

..is we’ll look at the legislation and it won’t be anywhere near strong enough.

SIMON LONGSTAFF

There was a bill introduced today, I think, by Dr Helen Haines, the independent member for Indi, and that’s based, as I understand it, on the Beechworth Principles, which would give comprehensive coverage, and it has real teeth. What I’m interested in is whether or not the major parties will at least allow it to be debated – I’m not sure whether they’ll vote for it, but will it be debated?

TANYA PLIBERSEK

Well, I hope so. I haven’t seen the legislation, but I have spoken to Helen Haines about her bill, and I think it’s great that she has joined this fight. But, of course, we need to look at the legislation in some detail. I think it’s terrific that she’s involved, but surely, surely to God, this would pass more quickly and be more effective if we had government legislation providing a strong national integrity commission.

HAMISH MACDONALD

Dani, do you think there is a different set of standards for our politicians compared with the rest of us?

DANI LARKIN, LAWYER, ULURU DIALOGUE LEADERSHIP GROUP

100%. I mean, our representative democracy, you know, is supposed to promise us, in a perfect world, accountability, ethical decision-making, and ethical decision-making that’s transparent. But what we see is, you know, things are clouded in secrecy and things are hidden, and that gives us no reassurance. You know, as a collective, as people that, you know, vote in people to represent our best interests, it gives us no assurance that that’s in fact what they’re doing. And, as Simon said, you know, most of the decisions that we’re seeing playing out now, they’re self-serving for either the individual politician’s interests or their political party.

And what’s infuriating, though, from a First Nation perspective is, all of this, when we talk about ethics within institutions, negates taking into account First Nation perspectives. All of this, for me, sees... It tells me that what we’re calling for really here is substantive structural reform within Australia. What we need and what we’re looking for is a real contest of ideas of political debate being had from across all sides of politics, and the debates are talking about topics about empowering all Australians, including those that are of Indigenous descent, and talking about, you know, mechanisms like an entrenched...constitutionally entrenched voice to parliament that would also work as an accountability mechanism, that would in particular represent First Nation interests. Because I can tell you now, I’ve had a look at the New South Wales ICAC, and what it doesn’t prioritise, because it’s predominantly comprised of non-Indigenous perspectives, is it’s got limited functions in terms of how it investigates people. So it doesn’t investigate police officers, and it certainly doesn’t investigate the Crime Commission – two areas that are priorities for First Nations, given our over-incarceration and our deaths in custody. So I would like to see something that speaks to First Nation interests on that.

HAMISH MACDONALD

Ken Henry, do you see any justification for us not yet being able to see what the government’s plans are, specifically for a national integrity commission?

KEN HENRY, FORMER TREASURY SECRETARY

No, honestly, I don’t get it. I, you know...

HAMISH MACDONALD

The Prime Minister says he didn’t want to spare a single public servant during this crisis.

KEN HENRY

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, if that’s true, then the public service has been run down even more than I had imagined the public service has been run down. Honestly, when I was...when I was in government, the public service certainly would have been capable of producing the legislation and, indeed, establishing such a commission whilst dealing with multiple crises. If it really is the case that the public service is incapable of doing that right now because we have to manage COVID-19, then the public service is in a very bad shape, and that’s a tragedy for the country.

HAMISH MACDONALD

But...if we’re being blunt about it, that line that it couldn’t be done during COVID – what was your reaction?

KEN HENRY

Well, my first reaction was, “I hope we don’t have another bushfire season.” That was my first reaction. I mean, honestly, this can’t be right.

SIMON LONGSTAFF

But the public sees... They must see through it. They can’t believe it. I mean, I don’t think that politicians... And I agree with Dave Sharma that, you know, people who go in typically do want to do the right thing, but I just don’t think they respect the community. If you can have a Prime Minister who stands up and says, “We can’t cope with a promise we made...” What was it, two or three years ago?

KEN HENRY

Yeah.

TANYA PLIBERSEK

Three.

SIMON LONGSTAFF

“..because we’re dealing with COVID-19...” Three years ago. I just don’t... The public just doesn’t believe that.

DANI LARKIN

But it’s the...

DAVE SHARMA

Hamish, can I just say, I mean...

DANI LARKIN

No, can I just talk for a second?

DAVE SHARMA

..we’re committed to doing this.

KEN HENRY

Yeah.

DANI LARKIN

What’s infuriating, though, is when we are talking about putting the people first and, you know, you raise the point with, “Oh, I hope a New South Wales bushfire doesn’t happen again,” when I see the Prime Minister taking a holiday to Hawaii in the midst of bushfire seasons, and people are losing lives, people are losing their property, people... Small businesses, you know, all their investment that they’ve put into that, they’re losing. You know, it’s inappropriate behaviour, and it’s insensitive to what everyday Australians are going through right now. You know, we’re in the midst of a recession and we’ve come out of the bushfire season but then we’ve gone into a global pandemic and I think what the everyday Australian is feeling is, you know, this feeling of frustration, because it’s so insensitive and it’s so...it’s flippant expenditure of taxpayers’ dollars that we’re all having to put up with.

KEN HENRY

I should say, Hamish, I certainly accept what Dave’s saying – that it will happen. I’ve no... There’s no doubt in my mind that it will happen. The question in my mind is whether the government understands why it should have higher priority. There’s a hell of a lot at stake here. I mean, you know, you started this conversation, or Alan started this conversation, talking about the loss of trust in politicians, and we’ve spent years observing the consequences of a loss of trust in business one after another, one sector after another after another after another, we’re setting up a royal commission – roughly one a year. That tells us there’s a systemic issue here, surely.

We know that there’s been a loss of trust in media – excluding the ABC, of course, right. But there has been a loss of trust in media. There’s even been a substantial loss of trust in NGOs, non-government organisations. We’ve seen horrific stories that have caused a loss of trust. But if you think of the various institutions of our system, our system of gov...our system of democracy and our economic system, politicians are the most important. And the reason they are the most important is because it’s the politicians who are meant to make sure that the system works for us. That’s why it’s so important. And if we lose faith in our politicians, then we’re going to have to have a different system.

HAMISH MACDONALD

OK.

KEN HENRY

And, in fact, we are taking matters into our own hands, aren’t we? I mean, you look at the way that social media is used these days. What’s that saying? A lot of it’s saying we’ve given up on politics, we’re taking matters into our own hands.

DANI LARKIN

This is precisely what the Uluru Statement from the Heart was – it’s a people’s movement, and it wasn’t presented, actually, to politicians, what it was presented to was the Australian public, and it was gifted to the Australian public, you know, as a call for, “Walk with us.” This is a grassroots people movement. We don’t want politicians deciding this fate, we want a referendum and we want all Australians to walk with us and decide how we’re going to transform this system so it actually works for everyone.

HAMISH MACDONALD

Alright. On that note, you’re watching Q+A. If you want to join the conversation on social media, the hashtag is #QandA. And we do ask that you do...join the debate respectfully if you’re joining from home. Our next question is from Caroline Egan.

CAROLINE EGAN

Aged care workers have to get by on an income of around $50,000, and many earn much less. They have insecure roles and often no paid annual leave. They don’t get superannuation or sick pay, let alone severance pay, long service leave and the like. The recent revelations from Australia Post and ASIC about Cartier watch bonuses and $120,000 tax minimisation bills highlight the vast chasm between the different types of workers in Australia. My question is, how much of these exorbitant income executives earn in salaries and bonuses is deserved, and how much is simply greed, or the most they can get away with?

HAMISH MACDONALD

Dani?

DANI LARKIN

I mean, I would love a Cartier watch! Still waiting for my Cartier watch! I mean...

HAMISH MACDONALD

But is it greed? Is that what this is about, or something else?

DANI LARKIN

It is. I mean, and it’s insensitive. As I say... I’ll say it again – I mean, people in this...you know, in the global pandemic, and in, you know, the midst of a recession, they have lost lives, they have lost a lot of money, they have lost their jobs, you know, and we’ve got Christmas around the corner and they’re trying to figure out the best way in which they’re going to manage their finances, and what we see here with that kind of expenditure is absolute greed. And, you know, it’s distrust. You’re dealing with public funds. And look at the extravagant gifts that are being, you know, flippantly, you know, put out there and gifted. So...

HAMISH MACDONALD

Ken Henry, why do you think there is so much outrage about these watches, the sum total of which I think was $20,000 or so?

KEN HENRY

Yeah.

HAMISH MACDONALD

And yet the comparative outrage around the purchase of land near the Badgerys Creek Airport – $30 million the Commonwealth spent of taxpayers’ money on land that was worth $3 million – can you explain why the public reacts to one with so much more outrage than the other?

KEN HENRY

Well, I think it’s in the question. I think it’s in the question, you know – people understand the circumstances in which they live. They understand how they’re treated as an employee. And they simply cannot understand how somebody in a different place with a different title can be treated in a completely different way, right? That’s... It’s the juxtaposition of those two things that they find really difficult to understand. Actually, it’s impossible to understand, I think. But I would...I would say that, and I would encourage people... Because that question really has two parts. I would encourage people to focus on the first part, which is, why the hell are people in aged care paid so badly? That’s the real question here, I think. A few Cartier watches – of course, you know, it’s kind of salacious and it’s…you know, it kind of makes for good media – but the really important, the really important question here is why we pay aged care workers so badly. That’s the important question.

HAMISH MACDONALD

I just want to bring in Dave Sharma, though, on the Cartier watches. We all saw the visceral reaction from the Prime Minister and your government to the news about these watches, and we can compare that to the response around the Leppington Triangle property purchase, the sports rorts affair, there’s obviously a range of other incidents that have occurred – why did that provoke such a reaction from your government while these other incidents didn’t?

DAVE SHARMA

Well, I’d say, Hamish, I think it offended...the Cartier watches issue offended everyone’s sensibilities and sense of solidarity through this crisis, and particularly since it’s a public corporation, it’s, you know, taxpayer owned, and we’re the largest shareholder anyway, and people thought, you know, it was absolutely the wrong signal to be sending in a time when a lot of people are going through a lot of difficult times. I just think we should... I mean, that was clearly a decision taken by the leadership of Australia Post to do this. The Leppington Triangle issue, I mean, that was not a decision that came to a minister. The Australian National Audit Office has made adverse findings. It’s being investigated –the AFP is investigating. So let’s find the culprit before we point the finger in that instance, I think...

HAMISH MACDONALD

But what about ministerial responsibility for things like that?

DAVE SHARMA

Well, I don’t think there’s any suggestion that the minister responsible took that decision. It was taken by bureaucrats within the department.

SIMON LONGSTAFF

Yeah, but, Dave, that’s not...

DAVE SHARMA

The minister’s responsibility is to get to the bottom of it, which is what we’re doing.

SIMON LONGSTAFF

No, that’s...

KEN HENRY

No, no, no.

SIMON LONGSTAFF

That is not how ministerial responsibility works...

KEN HENRY

No, it’s not.

SIMON LONGSTAFF

..in our system of government.

KEN HENRY

Well, it might...it is how it works today.

DANI LARKIN

Unfortunately so, it is.

SIMON LONGSTAFF

Well, it’s not how it’s supposed to work.

KEN HENRY

Supposed to work, no.

SIMON LONGSTAFF

The conventions...

DAVE SHARMA

According to you, Simon, yes.

SIMON LONGSTAFF

No, no, the conventions...

KEN HENRY

No, no.

DANI LARKIN

According to the public.

SIMON LONGSTAFF

No, not according to me. The well understood conventions of ministerial responsibility is that the only way that you can hold the executive who exercises power to account is by a minister being accountable to the parliament, who represent the people. And that requires a very difficult fiction to be put in place, which is that ministers take responsibility even if they may not personally have directed a certain action or known of it. Because if they don’t, then there’s no way our system works, Dave. And if you volunteer to be...

DAVE SHARMA

But, Simon, an investigation into this is still ongoing.

SIMON LONGSTAFF

If you volunteer to be a...

DAVE SHARMA

An investigation into this is still ongoing, and you’re already assuming what the findings are going to be.

SIMON LONGSTAFF

No, no, I’m challenging your claim that that’s not...

DAVE SHARMA

And that’s contrary to due process... (SPEAKS INDISTINCTLY)

KEN HENRY

No, no, no.

DAVE SHARMA

It is.

SIMON LONGSTAFF

No, I’m challenging your claim that minister...that ministerial responsibility doesn’t apply in the way that I said it does. Now, I’m happy with due process but, ultimately, the minister is responsible.

HAMISH MACDONALD

Ken Henry...

ALL

(TALK OVER EACH OTHER)

KEN HENRY

When I joined the public service, the doctrine of ministerial responsibility was in place. Now, this was 1984 – it’s a hell of a long time ago – but the doctrine of ministerial responsibility was in place, and what it meant was that if there was significant maladministration in a department or agency that was in...within the portfolio of the minister, or there was a really bad policy and the policy went shonky, the minister stood down. That was what the doctrine of ministerial responsibility meant. And it disappeared, I would say, at some stage in the Howard government years – just disappeared.

These days, I’m not sure. I’d actually be interested in Tanya and Dave’s view on this, but is it even the case today that if a minister misleads the House, that the minister feels obliged to correct the record as soon as is humanly possible, else the minister has to resign? Do you see it that way?

TANYA PLIBERSEK

Well, I think it depends on the minister, doesn’t it? We’ve had examples in recent times... We’re talking about the Leppington Triangle of land now, but we’ve had sports rorts, we’ve had water buyback rorts, we’ve had the grasslands scandal, we’ve had travel rorts, we’ve had alleged branch stacking with taxpayer funds. We’ve had a bunch of things. We had Angus Taylor saying that the document he relied on to make claims about the City of Sydney Council was not forged. He said that in the parliament more than once. And then, I mean, where did it come from? Like, seriously, it beggars belief that he was telling the truth in the parliament when he said that. So, obviously, there are some ministers who don’t feel that misleading the parliament is a sacking offence.

And what’s really terrible about this is that the Prime Minister should be upholding these standards, he should be insisting that these standards are upheld, and he doesn’t. He puts some people on the backbench for a spell, like Stuart Robert or Sussan Ley, when they get in trouble, and then they just get recycled in the next ministerial reshuffle. The standards have been declining for years. That’s why we need a national integrity commission.

HAMISH MACDONALD

Alright, let’s take our next question. It is from Deanna McMath.

DEANNA McMATH

There are...

HAMISH MACDONALD

The next question from Deanna McMath.

DEANNA McMATH

Thanks, Hamish. There are slip-ups and mistakes from both Liberal and Labor leaders. The latest is Gladys Berejiklian in New South Wales. What would it take for leaders from both sides to realise they are all just living in glass houses? Should we expect any better from our pollies, or just shrug our shoulders and say, “They’re only human”?

HAMISH MACDONALD

Simon Longstaff, Dan Andrews, Gladys Berejiklian – are they just human?

SIMON LONGSTAFF

Of course, they are subject to human frailty, and I think they do an incredibly difficult job, but it’s a job they volunteered to do. No-one is forced to seek elected office. No-one is required to become a minister, and, if you do, it comes with consequences, some of which are that there are things which are obviously unfair, like being responsible for things that you didn’t directly do yourself but which are an essential ingredient of the public service you give. It’s not fair for a soldier who volunteers to go to war to hazard their life, but they do it – it comes with the task. And so it does with people who are ministers.

So you bring your human frailty to bear but then you have to have the kind of moral courage to accept what comes with the position and, if you make a mistake, to be open about it and not try and paper over it to the point that people think to be absurd. So I think there’s a huge challenge there and we need to understand, yes, of course... I mean, I’d hate to be in that role. I’m sure I’d do a terrible job at it. But I just want to believe of myself that if I did get into a position where that kind of error was there, I would honour those conventions, not for my own sake, but for the sake of the public that I claim to serve.

HAMISH MACDONALD

But, Simon, just to be clear, do you think it’s reasonable for the public to be asking whether these two leaders should continue to serve in their roles given what has happened in both New South Wales and Victoria?

SIMON LONGSTAFF

I think they’re different cases. I think, certainly, in the case of New South Wales, which I know a bit more about, ‘cause I’ve watched it more closely, in the case of the Premier, there’s a ministerial code of conduct, and there’s some question about whether or not conflicts were disclosed. And it’s become...

HAMISH MACDONALD

But to be clear, there’s no...there’s no specific allegation against Gladys Berejiklian, is there?

SIMON LONGSTAFF

No, no, not...not around any notion of corruption, but there is a question about whether or not conflicts of interest were disclosed as required under the ministerial code of conduct. And, unfortunately, it has become a highly partisan matter within the Legislative Assembly. I mean, what I think ought to have happened is that the Premier, if in any doubt about this at all, should have referred the matter to a disinterested umpire in the form of the ICAC, ‘cause this code of conduct is part of that legislation, and let them form a view based on the facts.

HAMISH MACDONALD

If we accept the argument, Ken and Simon, that you just put about ministerial responsibility, why is it, for example, that in Victoria, Dan Andrews, although saying he accepts responsibility for what’s happened, hasn’t...

SIMON LONGSTAFF

Oh, no, ultimately, ultimately, I think he should be just as responsible in the way I’ve said about… I’m not trying to say that there’s one rule for him and a different... We’ve got to be even-handed in our expectations, irrespective of what we think about the particular merits of that individual as a person, and you can admire them as individuals, but that doctrine applies irrespective of party.

HAMISH MACDONALD

Tanya Plibersek?

TANYA PLIBERSEK

And it is... Yeah, well, Dan Andrews faces the media every day and does a long press conference. He’s instituted an inquiry into the hotel quarantine. He started that inquiry into his own government. The Health Minister has resigned, the Head of the Public Service has resigned down there, for some of the shortcomings of their system. In contrast, in New South Wales, well, there doesn’t seem to have been much action yet, or many consequences.

HAMISH MACDONALD

But can you explain, Tanya Plibersek, why the Head of the Public Service had to go, the Health Minister had to go, but not the Premier, given what you’ve just described?

TANYA PLIBERSEK

Well, I mean, maybe Simon wants to jump in here as well, but we’re talking about the doctrine of ministerial responsibility, and the minister who was responsible for some of the shortcomings...took ministerial responsibility and went, and the Head of the Public Service went...

HAMISH MACDONALD

But, Ken, we still don’t know who signed off on this decision about the private security in the hotels in Melbourne that did lead, ultimately, to hundreds of people dying in Victoria. I’m just wondering where the ministerial responsibility kicks in at the level of premier?

KEN HENRY

Yeah, well that’s a rather difficult question to answer, given that we don’t have all the facts, and I know that... And I understand why people want to rush to judgement, but, you know, I think we should be careful not to try people before we have all the facts. And I’d also remind people that, you know, right at the start… And Dave said something which I absolutely agree with – that actually, through this crisis, our politicians have been doing a good job. And I think that’s true of all of the premiers, and I think it’s true of the Prime Minister as well. And I think it demonstrates...

HAMISH MACDONALD

So should they be given some more leeway on some of these things?

KEN HENRY

Well, I think... I think we do have to give them more leeway. But, of course, why don’t we give them more leeway? It’s because they keep disappointing us. You know? That’s why we don’t give them more leeway. We expect a hell of a lot more of them than they normally deliver. They’ve demonstrated an ability to run the system well – OK, in some places much better than in others – but generally to run the system well in a crisis. We want them, don’t we, to be able to run the system well all of the time, right? That’s their responsibility. They shouldn’t be surprised that we’re hard on them.

And by the way, and in the question, Deanna, I think… The question started with something about politicians understanding that they live in a glass house – they really should understand that they live in a glass house. And before they do anything, they should ask themselves the question, “Who’s watching?” And the answer to that question should be, “Uh, well, probably everybody.” Maybe not today, but they will find out, and that might encourage a higher level of behaviour, a heightening of ethical standards.

HAMISH MACDONALD

Dani, should a different standard be applied to Gladys Berejiklian because she has delivered during the COVID crisis, do you think?

DANI LARKIN

Look, I think, again, like, I’d have to agree with Ken and Simon. Like, it’s a contextual issue. I mean, I do intuitively empathise with everything that Dan Andrews has gone through, but it’s because, look at the situation in Victoria compared to New South Wales. Like, you can’t really compare the two. And for a person that’s willing to stand in front of the media and be held accountable and answer questions every single day – if you would have said this to him when he was first elected, “One day you are going to become Premier and you are going to go through one of the most trying, hardest global crises of your time and you are going to have to stand and be held accountable and be publicly scrutinised by the media and by the public every day for every decision that you make and trying to protect people’s lives and during, you know, lockdown,” I don’t think he probably would have said yes to that. And so I think, you know, given the circumstances, the fact that he’s still standing around and he has made it clear to the public, “I’m not walking away from this, I’m going to let the right processes play out and I’ll see what the decisions made after that, but I’m going to be held accountable either way,” and he’s still turning up every day to answer questions, speaks volumes. So I think you can’t really compare the two.

HAMISH MACDONALD

Alright. The next question is a video from Tabetha Senior in Blacktown, New South Wales.

TABETHA SENIOR, BLACKTOWN, NSW

Hi there. I’m a born-and-bred Queenslander, and for the past several years, for work purposes, I have resided in New South Wales. Before the pandemic hit, I would travel home about four to five times per year to see my loved ones, to see those who meant something to me – my friends, my family, my social network, and obviously my support network. Since the pandemic has hit, like many Australians, I have been subjected to the border closures and restrictions, which have isolated me from those that I care about. Other Australians are isolated from their partners, their families, their children, their parents, and so on and so forth. My question is, is it ethical for the Australian state leaders to turn a blind eye to the ongoing mental health conditions and issues that many Australians are now going to be facing due to these restrictions?

HAMISH MACDONALD

Dave Sharma?

DAVE SHARMA

It’s a good question from Tabetha, and it highlights, I think, a lot of the personal hardship that people are facing. And, look, absolutely no, it’s not ethical to turn a blind eye to these things. These state borders have imposed immense personal and psychological and other difficulties on people, as have, like, the lockdowns in Victoria, and I think they could only be justified when there’s strong and compelling health evidence that that was the right thing to do. Now, that’s... Inevitably, you know, you’re weighing against...people’s freedoms against their health, and trying to protect their health at the expense of some of their freedoms. And we’ve had to do this through this pandemic. We’ve had to, you know, close international borders, we’ve had to introduce, you know, social distancing, we’ve had to make a number of businesses unviable because of the health risks of the pandemic. But we need to be very careful with every one of those decisions we take to restrict people’s liberty or their ability to earn a living or to see their family, that there’s a pretty strong justification for doing so.

HAMISH MACDONALD

But why is it that the federal government has been tougher on some states more than others around border closures? It’s been pretty notable the way the government has gone after the Queensland...the federal government has gone after the Queensland government, a Labor state, but hasn’t had all that much to say about South Australia and Tasmania also imposing border restrictions.

DAVE SHARMA

Well, I think for South Australia and Tasmania... I mean, look, I don’t agree that there has been a different approach. I’d say that...

TANYA PLIBERSEK

(LAUGHS)

DAVE SHARMA

I don’t. I mean, this was discussed at the National Cabinet and there was meant to be a three-phrase approach, and the states were moving at their own pace. States then began to...

HAMISH MACDONALD

Could you name one of your federal colleagues that’s been sort of taking pot-shots at the South Australian or Tasmanian premiers in the media the way they have done at Annastacia Palaszczuk in Queensland?

DAVE SHARMA

I think there’s a unique set of circumstances on the New South Wales/Queensland border. It’s been the New South Wales Premier, as much as anyone, that’s been taking shots at the Queensland Premier, because of the unique hardships that are imposed on a pretty significant border community there across those borders. We’ve seen the same thing...

HAMISH MACDONALD

So there has been a different approach?

DAVE SHARMA

..on the Victorian/South Australia border and the Victoria and New South Wales border.

HAMISH MACDONALD

So there has been a different approach?

DAVE SHARMA

Well, I... I think you need to look at the risk. I mean, South Australia was closing its borders by and large to Victoria because of the risk coming from Victoria. The New South Wales/Victoria border closure, I don’t think people objected to, because people understood that the risk emanating from Victoria was high, but I think the Queensland/New South Wales border, I don’t think there was much health evidence to justify that closure, or at least not for the duration it has been in place for.

HAMISH MACDONALD

Tanya Plibersek, the question was whether it’s ethical for state leaders to do what they’ve done.

TANYA PLIBERSEK

I think it’s definitely been hard on people. Obviously, Tabetha’s right in saying that there have been significant mental health impacts on people who are separated from loved ones, people who haven’t been able to travel for work, for a whole range of reasons. And we can’t ignore that. I think it’s important that the government has expanded the number of counselling sessions, for example, that are available through Medicare – that’s a good thing that the federal government has gone. But I think... I do think that a lot of these restrictions have been necessary, and you only need to look at what’s happening with the second wave or a third wave of infections in Europe at the moment, the extraordinarily high infection rates in the United States, to see what would have happened, or could have happened in Australia if the virus had got out of control. So it has been hard, but I think it’s been...

HAMISH MACDONALD

But, Tanya, when you saw...when you saw the Queensland government preventing people coming into Queensland on compassionate grounds, for funerals, to see dying relatives, and then letting in footy players and celebrities to shoot films, didn’t you look at that and think, “That doesn’t seem very fair”?

TANYA PLIBERSEK

Yeah, I think when you look at some of the decisions that are being made, you know, day by day, you’d scratch your head sometimes and say, “Well, I’m not sure why that decision was made and not that decision,” but this is completely uncharted territory for any of us. It’s all new. It’s all happening for the first time.

HAMISH MACDONALD

So sometimes ethics go by the wayside?

SIMON LONGSTAFF

No, I think what...

TANYA PLIBERSEK

No, no. It’s not that ethics go by the wayside. That’s not what I’m saying, Hamish. These systems are run by human beings, and human beings are fallible, and we try to learn from our mistakes and do better next time. So none of this has been perfect. And what troubles me is that we’ve got a federal government pointing the finger, as you say, in different ways at different states, and also refusing to take responsibility for the things that are federal responsibilities, like aged care – completely a federal responsibility. Look at the terrible number of deaths in aged care in Victoria. Like the app that was supposed to help with contact tracing – we found out today it’s found a total of 17 people for a $70 million spend. Like getting Australians home from overseas – we’ve still got about 30,000 Australians stuck overseas. So instead of just pointing the finger at the states that they don’t like, how about the federal government takes responsibility for the things that are a federal responsibility, and gets them right?

SIMON LONGSTAFF

I think that... Look, I think when it comes to these really difficult issues, you’re always best served to go back to basic principles. So here are three things I think you could do. One, that you should only restrict people’s liberties when it is strictly necessary to do so and only to the extent that’s necessary. Secondly, that when it comes to privileging life over other considerations, you should do so on that basis. And in that sense, you have to recognise that, at the moment, in the absence of a vaccine, the best information... And Dave Sharma’s right – we should always look at the actual medical evidence and make an informed decision on that basis.

But in some cases where there are hot spots and other things that need to be managed, the only tool we have available to us at the moment is some form of isolation. Whereas the other kind of harms that Tabetha spoke of, we’ve got many other things we could do. If we wanted to, we could make a massive investment in helping people with their mental health. That’s a choice we can make, as we can make a massive investment in other things. But we don’t have any other tool to preserve lives for those aged and vulnerable people where the medical case required. And so, that’s how I would try and do it. I’d say to our politicians, go back to principles – enlarge liberty, go base it on evidence, and then use what tools you’ve got to offset the other mischief that you’re causing, that Tabetha spoke of.

HAMISH MACDONALD

But often the predominant feature of our decision-making comes down to cost and the benefit to our economy. If you just sort of zoom out from this question and the broader conversation we’re having tonight, you’ve done a big piece of work at The Ethics Centre around, I suppose, the cost of a more ethical Australia. Do you think we would be better off economically if we made more ethical choices as a community?

SIMON LONGSTAFF

Well, I wouldn’t want to ground the case for ethics on economics, but what we did do, and I had a degree of reluctance when we did it, is we asked Deloitte Access Economics a simple question – what, if any, is the effect of ethics on the economy? And it’s not the cost. The extraordinary thing, a complete surprise to everybody, I think, who was involved, but you don’t have to go for perfection, and we’ve been struggling with this here. You know, the human failings and all this. If you just had a 10% improvement in the ethics of this country, it would deliver a $45 billion increase in GDP. And this is incredibly rigorous economic analysis that’s been done. 75 different datasets they’ve used, three forms of economic modelling. It’ll increase the wealth of individual Australians, it will reduce mental health stress by 1% – in other words, it will improve it by 1%. No matter which way you look at it, if you wanted to have a better kind of recovery coming out of COVID, the one thing you would invest in is the ethical infrastructure that we’ve been touching on. And, you know, it just gives extraordinary... I mean, you’ve seen it.

KEN HENRY

Yeah, yeah.

HAMISH MACDONALD

What’s ethical infrastructure – like an integrity commission?

SIMON LONGSTAFF

Oh. No, it’s... The integrity commission...

KEN HENRY

All part of it.

SIMON LONGSTAFF

We’ve touched on it tonight. The Auditor-General, who I think had their funds cut in the last budget, the role that media plays, the role of the professions, politicians and political parties. If we could have a solid ethical foundation, which... And I would go with Dani on this. I’d be looking at Indigenous insight to find something that truly belongs to us – no-one else can say it. I’d say, what would that tell us that we could use as an informed basis? And, Ken, you’ve seen the figures, I think.

KEN HENRY

Sure.

SIMON LONGSTAFF

You know, you know just how extraordinary it is.

KEN HENRY

Well, yeah, and I don’t find the figures at all surprising.

SIMON LONGSTAFF

Don’t you?

KEN HENRY

No, no, no. I don’t find the figures surprising because the...the ethical investment that is talked about in the...in the report, is substituting for something that is badly lacking. That is... And the lack of trust in our institutions is a huge drag on our economy. How can... A system is not going to work if people don’t trust the system, right? Or at least it’s going to work imperfectly. It’s not going to work as well as it could work if the system is not trusted. And really, what the report is saying is, if we can improve trust in the system by making an investment in ethics and an investment in ethical behaviour, then we get an economic dividend. It makes perfectly good sense.

HAMISH MACDONALD

OK, let’s...let’s take our next question. It’s a video from Patricia Farrar in Concord, New South Wales.

PATRICIA FARRAR, CONCORD, NSW

This week, I was shocked and appalled to see footage of Scott Morrison behaving disrespectfully towards Tanya Plibersek when she was addressing parliament. Morrison turned his back on her, and played with his phone, as did Josh Frydenberg. I first noticed Morrison’s behaviour when Anthony Albanese was delivering his Budget reply. Is this a new standard of parliamentary behaviour? Should we ignore it, or call it out for what it is – rudeness and disrespect?

HAMISH MACDONALD

Well, if you missed the image, this is it. It was taken by Alex Ellinghausen, one of the brilliant press gallery photographers. That image went viral. Tanya Plibersek, how do you respond?

TANYA PLIBERSEK

Well, I can tell you how my mum responded. She said, “Your posture’s terrible in that photo – stand up straight next time!” (LAUGHS) Honestly, it doesn’t bother me. It doesn’t bother me how they treat me. What bothers me is the disrespect shown to our democracy when people behave badly in our parliament and the fact that then ordinary Australians look at it and feel alienated from it. They say, “Democracy is not important, it’s not for me, they’re all the same, they all behave badly.” And really, I do sometimes feel like we’re in a...a kind of existential fight for the soul of democracy. There’s this organisation called Freedom House and it says that we’re in the 14th year of democratic decline globally. So, it’s an institution set up in 1941 by Eleanor Roosevelt and others. We are going backwards in the number of countries that have properly functioning democracies globally. We need to fight for and protect and defend our democracy here in Australia, and the very notion of democracy that all of us have a say, that everybody’s say matters. And I think, you know, like, I don’t care what they think about me, I don’t care what they say about me – I’ve got a pretty tough skin.

HAMISH MACDONALD

Tanya, I ‘m sure...

TANYA PLIBERSEK

But I do care about democracy.

HAMISH MACDONALD

..I’m sure you know it would have taken us about five minutes to dig up photos of what happens when the government is talking in parliament. And you can look at this one. Now, I mean, this question was about standards in parliament, and the point is we all watch parliament, and we all see – I’m sure you can see yourself there in that image looking down at your phone – this is not just about one side of politics, is it? This is about the diminishing standards of our parliamentary democracy, of which all of you in our parliament are part?

TANYA PLIBERSEK

Yeah. Sometimes, I’ve got to say, the phone is actually people tweeting during Question Time, because we’re not allowed to shout out anymore, so we get on the Twitters.

HAMISH MACDONALD

But come on! You shouldn’t be on Twitter, should you, during Question Time? Aren’t you there to represent us?

TANYA PLIBERSEK

Oh, yeah, I think... Actually, I think it is a really good time to engage with people. It takes you a second to say, “Hang on a minute – what that minister said is not true. This is the reason it’s not true.” There are people who are following Question Time from home and it’s communicating with them directly during Question Time to say, “Hang on a minute – think twice about what you’ve just been told.”

SIMON LONGSTAFF

So, do you think that’s...?

TANYA PLIBERSEK

I think that is actually quite a good part of democracy, to be able to communicate directly with people in real time instead of going out after Question Time, ringing up a journalist, saying, “Oh, I really want you to follow this story,” you know, and putting yourself at the mercy of a journalist. No, I think that’s OK, as long as it’s within reason – quickly, and then you’re done. As long as there’s a reason, like that. But I am... You know, I am, at a deeper sense, worried about the notion that it doesn’t matter, that democracy doesn’t matter anymore because “they’re all the same” and that’s, I think, at the heart of what your questioner was getting to, that decline in standards. Giving people, you know, a...a feeling that nothing they do makes a difference, nothing they say or believe gets through to us. And that’s really dangerous.

HAMISH MACDONALD

Dani, what do you see when you see all of these politicians on the different sides of the benches looking down at their phones instead of engaging in the actual parliamentary process?

DANI LARKIN

I mean, it speaks volumes. I mean, I just...I look at different things that go on in politics and I look at our Indigenous representatives, and when there’s something going on, whether it’s out the front of Parliament House, or a particular Indigenous issue that they’re talking to, and the total lack of consideration or interest in actually engaging and learning something from those issues and, like I said before, having, you know, a vested interest in having a bit of a political debate and contesting ideas about the best way forward of overcoming those types of issues. I mean, but from...

Another thing – when I look at a photo with Tanya and, you know, Scott Morrison turning his back on her, the kind of message that sends for, you know, what’s meant to be representative, but, you know, also inclusive of all people – you know, the kind of message it sends for the casual onlooker is that it’s not. And so, what I really think is it’s about time we have more diversity within our parliament, and maybe that in and of itself would work as a bit of an accountability measure, because you’re going to have different kinds of political opinions based on different cultural experiences and identities, you know, making better-informed decisions, and that’s a really good thing we have.

I mean, if we look abroad to New Zealand, Jacinda Ardern has an overwhelming majority government, and she has...her government, at the moment, is the most diversified New Zealand’s ever seen. And, you know, people absolutely adore her and her leadership there, and she gets great outcomes for her people, and there’s trust there. These are the types of things that we should be looking on to from an Australian perspective, and thinking, “What can we learn from that? How do we create that kind of democratic inclusivity within our institution?”

SIMON LONGSTAFF

Can I just ask Dave and Tanya, when the cameras aren’t on... You know, ‘cause that might have just been an unfortunate time. When we’re not watching, do you all actually get on? And is it much more the kind of thing that we want our democracy to be – that you are cooperating in committee meetings and things like that?

HAMISH MACDONALD

Dave Sharma?

DAVE SHARMA

Look, that’s absolutely been my experience. I mean, I’ve been surprised. I’m new to parliament, I’ve only been here a little over a year, but when Question Time isn’t on and when the cameras aren’t rolling, it is quite a collegial, friendly and courteous workplace. That might sound strange, but I think everyone in the building has a respect for one another and, you know, what they bring to the table. And, look, you know, I agree, Question Time and some of the features of it are an unfortunate, you know, representation to the public. It is an adversarial chamber, though. It is an adversarial format.

HAMISH MACDONALD

Do you tweet during Question Time, Dave?

DAVE SHARMA

I rarely tweet. I don’t think I’ve...I would. I may have occasionally tweeted during Question Time, but I wouldn’t normally. But, I mean, I’d say, look, often I’ll be speaking in the parliament and people will be interjecting or yelling at me or putting me off my game, but I don’t take it as a sign of disrespect from those opposite. It’s just how it is. It’s, you know... And I’d encourage your viewers, you know, I think, to perhaps feel a little more generous in their estimation of their politicians and don’t just judge about what they see from Question Time.

KEN HENRY

But I think this is the important point, though, isn’t it, Dave? I mean, I certainly accept what you are saying, and, of course, I have seen it behind the scenes as well, and I have observed politicians across the chamber getting on very, very well privately. But what’s at issue here is that when they demonstrate something different in public – and I accept that it is an adversarial chamber – but when they demonstrate something different in public, people lose trust in democracy. And there’s a hell of a lot at stake here. And, you know, I said earlier that our system – and I mean our system generally – doesn’t work if people don’t trust democracy. You know, if you’ll indulge me just one minute.

HAMISH MACDONALD

Quickly.

KEN HENRY

There was a lot of...there was a lot of discussion some years ago in the height of the royal commission into banking and finance about the social responsibility of business. And a lot of people were quoting Milton Freedman, and his...the point that he made, that business has no social responsibility beyond profit. But if you read Capitalism and Freedom, his text, which I first read the 20th edition of in 1982 and he released the 40th edition 2002 – he kept going back and revising it because it’s so difficult. But he makes it abundantly clear that, without a functioning democracy, capitalism lacks legitimacy. And why? Because he says that you need a functioning democracy in order to ensure that if businesses have no social responsibility beyond profit, that we, the rest of us, are not ripped off by businesses exercising monopoly power, we’re not ripped off by businesses defrauding us, we’re not ripped off by businesses deceiving us, and we’re not adversely affected by all of the negative externalities like, for example, human-induced climate change, that business create. That’s a responsibility of government, he says.

HAMISH MACDONALD

That leads us to our next question. It’s a video from Peter Brandson, in Batemans Bay in New South Wales.

PETER BRANDSON, BATEMANS BAY, NSW

Ken Henry said it would take 10 years to bring back cultural change at NAB just before he was shown the door. Ken, my question is, do you think staff with ill intent will quickly begin behaving ethically in their client’s interests if they saw that a few of their Australian colleagues were being jailed?

HAMISH MACDONALD

And we should make it clear that Peter, who asked that question, does have a longstanding complaint with the NAB. He’s mounted a campaign against predatory lending, particularly by NAB. But, Ken Henry, that question was about whether jailing bankers would send a stronger message.

KEN HENRY

It would certainly send a message. Um... Ha! And... (LAUGHS) ..it would terrify a lot of people. And I don’t know whether it would give people more confidence in the banking system, honestly...

HAMISH MACDONALD

You laughed at that – why?

KEN HENRY

I’ll tell you why, I’ll tell you why, because look at what HAS happened. The banking system has been subjected to...subject to – appropriately, by the way – intense scrutiny by a royal commission – I think the most expensive royal commission in Australia’s history in terms of taxpayers’ dollars spent, I think so. In addition, subject to extraordinary media scrutiny, all of which was entirely justified, as far...from my perspective, then by the government providing additional resources to the judicial system, and giving ASIC an additional $400 million to track down people who had been shown to be guilty of some offence. And, now, if all of that has led to nobody going to jail...then should we assume that what’s really at issue here is not that bankers... Well, look, some bankers may well have broken the law. They certainly acted, many of them, unethically. The question here is, I think, with respect to the question, whether people wouldn’t trust the banking system more if bankers acted more ethically.

HAMISH MACDONALD

So a lot of people reacted when we said you were coming on this program tonight to talk about ethics, given your experience at the royal commission. Some time has passed now. Obviously, there was a big public reaction to your appearance at the royal commission. Has it changed... Has that experience changed what you think about ethics in public life?

KEN HENRY

Oh, yes, in one very important respect, one very important respect – we should be more open in talking about it. We should. We should be... When we are challenged, we should be more open. And we should spend more time, as leaders, talking to the people for whom we are responsible about the importance of ethics. And we should not assume that... We should not assume that, when issues are brought to our attention, there’s just a few rotten apples. We should not assume that everybody who works for us has a good sense of what is the right thing to do in the often-challenging circumstances that confront them, where they have to make trade-offs. Rather, we should assume that they need support, and, in particular, they need support in deciding what is right and what is wrong.

SIMON LONGSTAFF

You’ve also got to understand, too, what ethics requires of us – and this is true of everybody, whether you’re, like me, running an ethics centre, or politicians, or any of us here. It’s not that it’s about just complying with a set of rules and codes. The really dangerous thing that undermines ethics in any organisation or society are two things. Firstly, hypocrisy, where you say one thing and you do something else. And the cause of that, more often than not, is not that people wake up in the morning intending to be hypocrites, but you ask them, “Why did you do what you did?” And they say, almost without fail, that, “Everybody was doing it,” or “That’s just the way it’s done around here.” What ethics is really about, it’s that quiet, insistent voice that challenges the unthinking custom and practice. In parliament, there’ll be stuff done that no-one can really explain – “Oh, it’s just the way we do it” or...and it has these... And so on and so forth.

HAMISH MACDONALD

I just want to come back to you, though, Ken, because I think you obviously have reflected a lot on what happened at the banking royal commission, and I suppose we’re all here to kind of take some lessons from the wisdom that you all bring to this panel. And I just want to know whether, when you saw the reaction, did you know straightaway, “I buggered that up. I was too defensive.”

KEN HENRY

Yeah, yeah, absolutely. No question, no question.

HAMISH MACDONALD

“I did come across as disrespectful.”

KEN HENRY

Well, I was surprised when people said I was disrespectful, but I accept it – of course I accept it. I wasn’t intending to be disrespectful. On reflection, I was intending to be defensive and that is, of course, ridiculous, you know. I think I can rationalise it, but it’s no excuse. My rationalisation is that I felt like I was in the dock, so maybe it’s kind of understandable. One in the dock might feel the need to defend oneself. But really, that was not the occasion for the way that I handled the questions. I should have been much more open. I should have...I should have actually said what I believed, right, which is that, “We’ve stuffed up a lot of things and we need to fix them.”

HAMISH MACDONALD

And do you think leaders would be more ethical if they were more willing to do that more often?

KEN HENRY

Not only would leaders be more ethical, I think the organisations they run would be more ethical. Sure, I do.

HAMISH MACDONALD

Let’s take our next question. It’s from Nial O’Brien.

NIAL O’BRIEN

Thanks, Hamish. With its rich history and unparalleled connection to this land, is Australia missing out on a huge opportunity to have an Indigenous bipartisan voice to parliament at the top level to ensure ethical decisions are being made to help protect this land, the environment and its peoples?

HAMISH MACDONALD

Dani?

DANI LARKIN

100%. OK, like I said before, the Uluru Statement from the Heart was a gift to the Australian people for everyone to walk together as one. It was a people’s movement and it was a calling for democratic action and actually listening to First Nations, and, you know, the government taking action on this really important constitutional reform proposal that’s being proposed, and that’s a voice to parliament, a constitutionally entrenched voice to parliament.

Now, this started over 10 years ago, and we’ve had a heap of reports, we’ve had a heap of consultation that’s been had from community, we’re now in the co-design process, and that’s coming towards the end, and we’ll have an interim report that gets put to the government and the government will then look at the different options, design options, of how the voice would function, and then another consultation process will be had. My issue with all of that is the people that were involved in the regional dialogues and the Uluru convention – the First Nations, the cultural authority, the peoples who have put blood, sweat and tears to, you know, coming up with this type of meaningful, substantive structural reform for First Nations to finally have a voice to parliament, to have a say on laws and policies that impact upon First Nation affairs, for the first time, and really important given our history… We’re still waiting for action. And I want to see the elders and the cultural authorities that participated in the dialogues actually see this come to a referendum, see some sort of, you know, positive resolution and outcome finally be reached by the government. And so I think it’s really down to… And maybe Dave Sharma can shed some light on this, because there’s lacked transparency in the co-design process. It’s not been, you know... It hasn’t involved First Nations who were involved in the regional dialogues in the Uluru convention. It’s been quite clouded in secrecy, and that’s been an issue. So I really don’t know where things are at with where we are moving forward from here.

HAMISH MACDONALD

Dave Sharma, what does it say that someone like Dani, who has been involved in this process quite substantially, now doesn’t know where it’s at?

DAVE SHARMA

Look, I think it’s unfortunate. I mean, someone like Dani has got a real contribution to make to this process, as do many Indigenous Australians. And with the consultation process, with developing the voice, there’s a commission being led by Tom Calma and Marcia Langton, I believe, that are meant to be going out and consulting with communities across Australia – Indigenous communities, Indigenous leaders, Indigenous elders across Australia – to help develop a voice that reflects...you know, the aspirations of those people consulted and creates a workable vehicle for this to happen. So, look, we do need to get this consultation process right. It needs to have a wide degree of buy-in and legitimacy for it to happen. So, you know, I would be happy to, you know, catch up with Dani offline afterwards and see if we can fix up some of this.

HAMISH MACDONALD

Can you clarify for all of us whether a referendum is going to happen?

DAVE SHARMA

Well, we’re committed to... The government’s commitment is to developing the voice and then constitutional recognition. So, constitutional recognition, obviously, does involve a referendum. But I think it’s important that we make sure that any question we put to a referendum has a strong chance of success. I think the success rate on referendums is about eight out of the last 44 have been successful, so we want to make sure that what we put forward has broad public buy-in, broad state buy-in, broad Indigenous buy-in and has a high chance of passing.

HAMISH MACDONALD

So probably not in this term of parliament?

DAVE SHARMA

I think it’s unlikely in this term of parliament, yes.

HAMISH MACDONALD

Ken Henry, you do work in this as well.

KEN HENRY

Well, yes, I’m... Well, I don’t know how many in the audience will be aware, I’m on the board of Cape York Partnership, which is trying to create employment opportunities for Indigenous people on Cape York. Actually, we’re doing better than trying, we are creating. And I used to be on the board of Reconciliation Australia, I was for some time. And, look, I can’t tell you how...how gutted I was when I saw Prime Minister Turnbull’s response to the Uluru Statement from the Heart. Actually I was beyond gutted, I was just so angry. I can’t tell you how angry I was. I’ve been stunned, really, at the...that there’s been... Well, really that Indigenous people...have not reacted with greater anger...to that.

SIMON LONGSTAFF

Dani said twice tonight...

HAMISH MACDONALD

Can we just let Dani respond to that?

DANI LARKIN

I’m sorry, but it’s a cop-out. I mean, I do find that remark to be quite frustrating because I’m there, I’m protesting, you know, in Black Lives Matter movements, and I’m there advocating relentlessly, and so are many other First Nations and non-indigenous Australians across this country, frustrated and wanting this to be finally dealt with, wanting to come together and wanting a referendum on this. We want to restore principles of representative democracy and actually let the people decide – put it to a referendum and let the people decide. And even though there’s been failed referendums in the past, the one that actually got the most ‘yes’ votes ever in Australian history was the 1967 referendum, and that was on Indigenous affairs. So we’re fed up with it and, you know, part of, you know, the issue with our structural issues within Australia is the fact that we have been forced to be really complacent with this kind of unethical decision-making and exclusion of our rights, politically. So it’s about time our voices are heard.

SIMON LONGSTAFF

There’s a really important point that Dani’s made on two occasions now, which I think often gets missed in this. She presented the Uluru Statement, not as a demand from Indigenous people, but as a gift that was offered to everyone.

KEN HENRY

Yeah, yeah.

SIMON LONGSTAFF

And I think Australians, when they come to have a referendum and all the rest, need to understand that this is not about giving something to Indigenous people – this is an offer for everybody, to make us all better off as a nation. And the frustration and the anger that you often hear is from people who say, “Can’t you understand what we’re trying to give you? And you won’t even...” And I think, unless we understand the context of that simple truth, the debate will never be properly understood or engaged with.

HAMISH MACDONALD

So is there not a deficit of anger amongst Indigenous Australians to how Malcolm Turnbull responded to the Uluru Statement, but rather a deficit of anger from the non-Indigenous population?

KEN HENRY

Oh, yeah, yeah, absolutely. Well... Yes, absolutely, I think so.

HAMISH MACDONALD

Tanya Plibersek?

TANYA PLIBERSEK

I support a voice to parliament, I support a treaty and I support makarrata – truth-telling. I think Australia will be a stronger, better nation when non-Indigenous Australians properly face the truth of our history. And I think what Dani is saying about this being a great gift, extending a hand, is a beautiful way of putting it, and it frustrates me no end that we’re no...we’re not further along the track – we should be.

HAMISH MACDONALD

Alright, we are over time. That’s all we’ve got time for tonight. Would you please thank our awesome panel – Dani Larkin, Dave Sharma, Ken Henry, Tanya Plibersek and Simon Longstaff. Put your hands together.

HAMISH MACDONALD

Thanks for all of your questions, as always. Next week will be the eve of the US election. We’ll debate what a Trump presidency or a Biden presidency would mean for us here in Australia. Fasten your seatbelts, folks. We’ll see you then.