September 7, 2023
Thursday 7 September 2023
Interview with Peter Stefanovic, First Edition
Subjects: Catherine King’s failure to clearly answer questions on Qatar decision, sporting codes’ support for the Yes campaign
STEFANOVIC: Joining us live now is the Shadow Home Affairs and Cyber Security Minister James Paterson. James, so just wrapping up Catherine King's press conference from Canberra Airport a short time ago. So she says the decision was hers alone, but she consulted colleagues including the Trade Minister. Might be news to the PM though, because he said he didn't know a couple of days ago. So first of all, are you buying her defence?
PATERSON: I remain deeply sceptical about the six, seven or eight different explanations that the Minister has now given for the reason why she made this decision to restrict competition, not least of which because her own colleagues have openly and publicly contradicted her about when she made this decision, how she made this decision, who she consulted in this decision, and what the reason for the decision was. The public is still none the wiser as to what the real reason for this decision was, although I think Stephen Jones probably was the most honest when he said the purpose was to restrict competition so that Qantas could charge higher fares to Australians so they could make higher profits. And in the absence of any more convincing explanation, I think he's probably the one who accidentally told the truth. But hopefully we'll get to the bottom of this because the Coalition has initiated a Senate inquiry that will be asking these tough questions so we get some real answers.
STEFANOVIC: Are we are we getting into the 'cover up being worse than the crime' territory here, James?
PATERSON: I think that's a very fair question to ask, Peter, because this whole thing stinks, it's dodgy. We know that the Prime Minister had a very close personal relationship with the former Qantas CEO Alan Joyce. They are buddies from way back and every time they're seen together they're backslapping and smiling. We know that Qantas is a very important supporter of the Yes campaign for the Voice and we know how important that is to the government. They've given free flights to Yes campaigners, they've got logos on their planes. It looks to me like a bit of a quid pro quo was done there and I think that stinks and I think the Australian public deserve answers to that. So I think the decision itself is dodgy, but the cover up is getting even worse.
STEFANOVIC: Okay, so Catherine King pointed out the denial to Qatar came after those Australian women were strip searched. So is that a fair enough point?
PATERSON: I'm deeply sceptical about this latest explanation because if this was the real reason, why didn't she just say so the first time she was asked when this controversy first emerged weeks ago? Why has she given so many other contradictory explanations and why is she only finally arriving at this as an explanation today? And if that is true, then if it's a human rights issue or a safety issue or a national security issue, well then the question shouldn't be, is Qatar allowed to have 28 flights or 56 flights but whether they should have any flights at all, if that's the real reason. It's not the frequency of flights that matters, but whether they have them at all. So I'm unconvinced at yet another explanation.
STEFANOVIC: Well, and that opens up, you know, question marks about other airlines from companies with questionable human rights records?
PATERSON: Well, I thought it was interesting that Bill Shorten, another minister in the government, while touting the decision to reject Qatar having further flights, celebrated the fact that China Southern Airlines was given more flights and what a great thing that was. I mean if human rights or national security is a consideration, I'm not sure you'd be celebrating a state-owned enterprise controlled by the Chinese government getting extra access to Australian airports.
STEFANOVIC: Well, you know, and on that point of the women being strip searched and that's still before the courts at the moment. I mean, the issue that jumped out to me and I only caught about 5 minutes of the press conference because I was on air. But she said, Catherine King here, she said that was one of several factors, but she didn't name the other factors. So what does that say to you about transparency here?
PATERSON: This is supposed to be the most transparent government ever. Anthony Albanese ran on that as a key plank of his platform before the election. And yet all we've seen from this government is cover ups, obfuscation and dodgy answers, shifting explanations. Whether it's this issue or a whole range of other issues and frankly, I think the media is starting to call the government out on this, starting to wake up to the government on this, the public is starting to wake up to the government about this. Why should we trust them on the most radical change to our Constitution since Federation if you can't trust them to provide a simple explanation about whether Qatar Airways should have extra flights into Australian airports.
STEFANOVIC: Just finally, James, you've mentioned the Voice while I've got you, I know you're an AFL fan. There is the report this morning that suggests that the AFL, and the NRL for that matter too are going to take it easy on Voice campaigning during the final series. It won't be there for the grand final in particular. Are you supportive of that?
PATERSON: This may be a rare moment of clarity from our sporting codes, they've woken up and realised that actually footy fans do not want constitutional advice or a moral lecture from their sporting club or sporting code and I think it's a very sensible decision. People just want to watch the footy, they just want to watch the grand final. They don't need to be lectured about how they're going to vote, that's their own choice and they'll make that on the 14th of October.
STEFANOVIC: Okay. James Paterson, good to have you with us as always we'll talk to you again soon.
ENDS
