Transcript - Television Interview - Sky News NewsDay with Tom Connell - Thursday, 11 November
TOM CONNELL, HOST: Joining me live is my panel, Liberal MP Jason Falinski from the Labor Party, Patrick Gorman. Jason, does this fit perfectly into your narrative that the government took to the last election, 26 to 28, they can take an updated amount this time around. So if that were the case, should it be 35, which is basically business as usual or actually something more ambitious than that?
JASON FALINSKI, LIBERAL MP: Oh, look, if you're asking me, Tom, I would suggest to you that we're doing a lot now, and that's obviously going to result in us improving on those results. So let's wait and see what the modelling shows. But yeah, your point is the right one, which is it is the easiest thing in the world for us to improve our targets for 2030 because we're already above our targets that we set in Paris. So yep, it's a pretty easy thing for us to do.
CONNELL: So when you say doing a lot and we'll do a lot more, do you mean more than the 35 per cent, up to 35 per cent projection?
FALINSKI: Thirty five percent is based on the projection of those policies that we had in place already. Since then, we've announced a suite of more policies. That, obviously, is going to have an impact on our emissions reduction projections. I think that we should both recognise that in targets because we've done the work, so we may as well take the credit. And when we've managed to do that, you might want to say, Look, there is probably even more that we can do between now and 2030 to get above that. But they're some questions that need to be thrashed out over the next three to six months. But as I say, as a nation, we are in a really good position because we're able to increase our targets without having a material impact on our economy.
CONNELL: We'll see if the PM shares that view. But Patrick, what about Labor? Does this give you the perfect opportunity to just bank thirty five and then say, Look, we'll see what happens if and when we get into government and take something to COP27. Is that the approach you can imagine Labor taking or you should take?
PATRICK GORMAN, SHADOW ASSISTANT MINISTER FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA: Well, I'm not going to imagine the approach the Labour will take. We've said very clearly will outline our policies after COP26 and before the next election.
CONNELL: But Josh Burns, Anne Aly, they're saying what you should do already, don't you want to lead the charge here, one of the great thinkers in the Labor Party?
GORMAN: That's very kind of you.
FALINSKI: He is a great thinker, Tom, that's a good point.
GORMAN: We'll have a discussion internally in the Labor Party about our approach and our policies and put them out for the people before the next election, as we've done already with a number of policies. But I'm getting sick and tired after eight years of this government always kicking the can down the road, always saying we'll do it next year. And that's exactly the argument that we saw from the Coalition in the newspapers today, and from Jason just now. Oh, don't ask us now, we're going to do it at COP27. Well, people will have to make a decision at the election, which party they think is genuine and committed to action on climate change. And I'm sorry, Jason, but I do not believe,
CONNELL: OK, well, we'll see what the PM takes and what Labor take, so I'm going to move on for now because I'm tipping this next topic will take up the rest of the panel.
FALINSKI: Oh, Tom! You didn't tell me we're having a contest today to see who could wear the biggest poppy.
CONNELL: Well, I'm losing by some margin.
FALINSKI: Oh, I know who's won. I know who's won that one.
GORMAN: I feel like I've got to, you have to let me thank the kids at Casa Mia Montessori in Bassendean who knitted this for me. Thanks to my local primary schools, many of whom are commemorating Remembrance Day today. In particular, shout out to the kids at Casa Mia Montessori.
FALINSKI: And I have to thank legacy who gave me this very beautiful one.
CONNELL: If there's any school in Canberra that wants to make me one would one, a nice knitted one. If you're watching out there, you should probably be in school, what's the time? I'm open to offers. Jason, let's talk about voter ID. I want to step through this. So at the moment, you don't show ID at an election. You can still vote at multiple venues. Afterwards, the electoral roll is checked, because you still get checked off. You have to go and you say, I'm Jason Falinski, here to vote for the Labor Party, and they check you off and they could still pick up multiple voting instances. What you want to do is change it, so you need to, or you are supposed to show ID. In that circumstance, you have to show ID, yes, but what's stopping you from still going to the same multiple voting centres and still voting multiple times? What's stopping you?
FALINSKI: Also, at the moment Tom, the problem is that the Commissioner can say, hey Tom Connell, we've caught you voting for the Liberal Party multiple times in Canberra. That's made a material difference to their vote there. Thank you for helping Zed Seselja be returned as a senator, but you 're not allowed to do that. And all you can say is, all you need to say is, well, I didn't vote multiple times, that someone else has voted on my behalf, or one of your staff has made a mistake, and they should have ticked someone else off, but they've ticked my name off. And on that basis, the Commissioner has nowhere to go because they can't prove otherwise.
CONNELL: Do the votes still stand?
FALINSKI: Well that's right, who knows where the votes went.
CONNELL: Well, I'm asking you, first of all, the votes in that circumstance still stand? If someone's voted 10 times, did they not strike off nine of them? Only one of them is counted?
FALINSKI: At the moment.
CONNELL: Oh, sorry, I'm answering my own question because you wouldn't know who they voted for. So, OK.
FALINSKI: Exactly.
CONNELL: Wouldn't that still be have to happen in a circumstance in which someone could cross the wrong person off? Why couldn't you say that in the future? Well, I only voted once.
FALINSKI: Well, in that particular instance, there is at least some form of check and balance in place. So before you go and vote, you have to identify who you are. So that is going to inhibit someone from just the open slather system we have at the moment, where anyone can turn up and say that they're Jason Falinski and vote.
CONNELL: And do they?
FALINSKI: Now, why anyone would want to admit to that, I don't know. But nonetheless.
CONNELL: But do they?
FALINSKI: Yeah, that's what you'd end up with. Sorry.
CONNELL: And the instances, the evidence, there is absolutely no evidence so far this has happened. The AEC calls it vanishingly small, he number of multiple voting incidents in Australia.
FALINSKI: The AEC also says that the only way that they can prove fraud is if someone admits it. So really, what they should be saying is the number of people who are willing to admit to electoral fraud is vanishingly small and not that electoral fraud itself is vanishingly small.
CONNELL: So why not do this, it's a big change, should you do this at a by-election? It's not that big a change, Tom. The fact of the matter is that we sit way outside what other democracies around the world do. And we're currently going through this farcical hearing system.
CONNELL: Well, how many democracies have compulsory voting? I mean, we have a very different system and it's worked pretty well.
FALINSKI: Well, that's another good point for it, another good point, that's an excellent point. We sit alone on a number of issues. But when it comes to fraud and integrity, we have no systems in place to ensure that that doesn't occur.
CONNELL: All right, Patrick, I haven't given you much of a say. It's a pretty low bar they're starting with. Not only can you, if you don't have your ID, someone else can vouch for you, or you can still vote and sign in the back of a form, no one's getting turned away on Election Day. It is a low bar, isn't it?
GORMAN: Yeah, but it tells you a lot about this government. That their priority when it comes to corruption is a non-problem in voter fraud, instead of doing anything about a federal anti-corruption commission. I mean, in terms of the choice they had, they could have legislated for one or the other, and they went to fix the non-problem of voter fraud, that Jason has just had to give us the most extraordinary hypothetical that involves you, Tom Connell, going in committing fraud. Now, Tom, I don't think you commit fraud. I don't think the people of Australia commit fraud when they go and vote. We've got a great democracy, it works incredibly well.
CONNELL: It could happen though, couldn't it? After the election, fifty votes the margin, in that circumstance, there won't be much recourse, will there? There is more of a possibility to have voter fraud now that it would be under this proposal, that much is true, isn't it Patrick?
GORMAN: But Tom, you just pointed out that even under this proposal, it doesn't stop someone going to multiple booths and showing their identity multiple times. And once they voted in that election, we don't know which is their ballot paper. We have the secret ballot in Australia. So this doesn't fix that problem, it just makes it harder for people to vote. It means longer lines. It means more people waiting for the results to come through. It's going to cost more. The Australian Electoral Commission has said this will cost more. So it's a lot of hassle, but not a lot of problem.
CONNELL: I think the point remains that it could still happen under these changes. But anyway, maybe Jason will have a rebuttal to that. It'll have to be in a couple of weeks’ time or next week, you're weekly, aren't you? Patrick, Jason.