The Chaser Report - ARVO: Rex Patrick on Making FOI's Sexy

Episode Date: February 16, 2022

Charles and Dom are joined by independent politician Senator Rex Patrick for an Arvo Chat. Rex is quizzed on everything happening in Canberra from the workplace culture, to the need for an ICAC, and what he is doing about it all. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Striving for mediocrity in a world of excellence, this is The Chaser Report. Hello and welcome to an afternoon edition of The Chaser Report. And our guest this afternoon, Charles and I are talking to South Australian Senator Rex Patrick of the Rex Patrick team, therefore effectively, an independent. Hello, Rex. Hello, how I are? How did you come up with the name for your team? It was a very, very long thinking process that took a team of about 10. So you're an upper house, you know, senator for South Australia.

In the footsteps of Nick Xenophon, does that mean that you have to have novelty oversized props everywhere you go? Look, I did try a prop. I did wear a submarine into the Senate Chamber once. But, look, Nick and I are different characters. I was actually Nick's advisor for a few years. And so he really taught me quite a lot. Were you pro or anti the big props in your own? advisory capacity.

Well, I don't have, I'm going to declare this, guys. I'm an engineer. I'm an accidental politician. I love FOI. I read high court cases on the weekend. You guys are really funny and witty. And so I feel like I need a bell if you guys ask me for something funny so that I can, you know, I can stay in my very, my comfort zone of being really serious.

Not at all. I mean, you are one of the perfect people to be in the parliament because who would have known that much of the past term has been all about submarines, of all things. It's been the submarine parliament. I mean, this is something you actually worked on submarines, right? Yeah, absolutely. So I was a submariner.

I know about them. It actually makes you really effective at things like Senate estimates where I confront admirals who are trying to perhaps defend a poor position and I do know a lot of detail. So it's actually really, really helpful. But hang on. So were you involved in the making of the Collins class submarine? Was that yours?

No, I was actually an Oberon class submariner. I was actually one of the first people posted to HMA's Collins. And that submarine was in a lot of trouble at the time. And I'm a kind of guy who wants to do stuff to be able to give effect to change and to do good things. And it was one of the reasons I left the Navy was because I was just trapped in this project that wasn't going to get good for some time and that I couldn't actually do much to, you know, to help it out. So I ended up leaving the Navy and helping from the outside, actually.

So we're going to talk a little bit about some of the things that you've done over the last six years, straight after this. The Chaser Report, news a few days after it happens. So, Rex, I'm really keen to get your take on what's happened with submarines because it seems so baffling to have just gone from the French model, which apparently could have been nuclear, they're originally nuclear, but we just asked them to be made non-nuclear, and then we dumped them and went for another kind of nuclear submarine

that we don't even know what it is yet. What's your read on all these kind of concriptions and changes? Oh, look, it's all very crazy. Let me tell you, I spend a lot of time not just on Australian submarines, I've been to sell on Greek submarines, I've been to see on South Korean submarines, It's been to sell U.S. nuclear-powered submarines. And I'm really frustrated.

I think Australia could have gone and bought an off-the-shelf submarine that they could have built here in Australia. They could have had 20 submarines for $20 billion. We have a problem. We have admirals, generals, air marshals, who have no project experience basically making recommendations to cabinet ministers who've got no project experience at all.

And we end up going down these hugely risky paths that just cost the tax part. 2009, we started to try and find a new future submarine. And here we are in 2022, and we're still just generating a report. It's just unbelievable. So what do we need? I think we need to go to Germany or Japan

and get one of their off-the-shelf submarines. We build them here in Australia, and then we HSV them, like, you know, we take a Commodore car and we make it better using Australian industry. And that will get a submarine that we can use in the next few years. Right now, the delivery time frame for the future nuclear submarine is 2040 in circumstances where the threat from our north, from China, is a 2030, if not 2020 problem. And in terms of getting Australian industry into that, I remember in sort of 2017-2018, there was concern that Australia was going to enter a sort of valley of death where, you know, all the sort of old submarines were coming, you know, off the production line and there wasn't going to be enough jobs to keep people employed in this industry and the whole industry would sort of disappear. Has that actually happened or like if we did do an off-the-shelf option, would there be enough industry there to actually do the building and do the upgrades? Yeah, well, we went from a valley to a chasm, you know, a Grand Canyon. That's where we're at now.

Look, we could take the industry we have now and we could build a relatively off-the-shelf submarine and we could be cutting steel in two years' time. And for me, that's what's needed from an industry perspective, but also from a national security perspective. We can't have our submariners going off to battle in 2032 in an aging Collins class submarine. That is just the wrong thing to do for our sailors. And I know you're going to say yes, because you're from South Australia and it's important in terms of jobs.

And I don't want to minimize that. But given the urgency of this, does it actually matter to have it built in Australia? because we don't build anything much else in Australia, certainly cars we've just given up on. Why is it important to actually make subs here as opposed to just buying ones that work and that have been made elsewhere? Well, firstly, we shouldn't have given up on the cars.

You've got to have a critical mass in order to be able to do manufacturing and sometimes that takes a little bit of government investment. But one of the great things about the Collins class submarines now, now that we've sorted them out, is that we have in-depth knowledge from the build activity. We generated knowledge that actually

helps us now as we try to keep those submarines running. And so it's about having a sovereign sustainment capability for the submarines. They actually be saying that government should be able to make their own PPE and rats and vaccines onshore. Yeah, I know it's just, there's a crazy idea. But I keep saying one of the problems we've got is we just keep exporting our rocks. Instead of exporting iron oil, I want to see it's exporting steel. Instead of exporting lithium, I want to see it's exporting battery

because it's that next stage where the jobs are created, the intellectual property is created, the money flows around the economy, that's where we want to be. And that may well take government investment, but that's how we make our economic pie bigger or tastier, as opposed to the government at the moment, really just trying to work out how to carve the current pie up.

We've got to do more here. Well, they're big on government investment into new gas plants. by the sounds things, but anyway. Yeah, well, don't get me started on that. But now, Rex, the first time I ever heard about you was, it was about a year ago now, I think, which is you started doing FOIs to try and get all the minutes of the National Cabinet meetings. So can you tell us a bit about that? Yeah, look, everything the government does, they do for public purpose,

and on your coin, right? So we actually have a right to look in and see what it is they're doing and how they're going about making decisions, and particularly in cases where it involves putting people in quarantine, shutting our borders, sending our kids to school during a pandemic. We ought to be able to see the medical advice. We ought to see, what, economic advice influences the decisions and so forth. So I wanted to get access to some of that material.

And look, when the Prime Minister made the National Cabinet in response to pandemic, I don't have a criticism of him doing that. He basically shut down a body called COAG, Council of Australian Governments, and started up as new National Cabinet because he wanted to streamline it. But then he wrapped cabinet secrecy around it. So basically said, we're going to do all of our big decision-making, incomplete secrecy. Now, I get it when you're doing that because you want to buy a fighter jet. I get that you do that when you're trying to work out what you're going to do with the intelligence services.

But when you're talking about people's health and their liberties, you can't do that. So look, I quickly realize that the National Cabinet is not a Cabinet. A Cabinet is actually a body that comes from one Parliament that is responsible to one Parliament has characteristics like collective responsibility and Cabinet solidarity. Of course, the National Cabinet's made up of nine jurisdictions, nine, you know, the Prime Minister and Territory Ministers and Premiers, and they're all of different parties. And we see the Prime Minister at the end of a conference come out and a Cabinet meeting come out

and say, look, this is what the National Cabinet is going to do, but Mark McGowan in Western Australia is going to do something different. And that's not how a Cabinet works. but the reality is it's an intergovernmental meeting and Australians always had a right to get access to those sorts of documents except in circumstances where it might have caused harm and I don't have a problem with documents being withheld if it genuinely causes harm.

Isn't cabinet confidentiality really important? Let's say if you're the prime minister and you're just trying to trade off an integrity commission for religious discrimination bill and you don't want to get embarrassed when that leaks to the media? Yeah, well, you've got to protect that embarrassed factor, you know, that's the fundamental, the Holy Grail. So how did it work?

Like, so you asked for all the minutes of these National Cabinet meetings, because the National Cabinet was just sort of a thing that Scott Morrison just made up, right? That's right. And they said, no, you can't have them. It's secret. Is that right? Yeah, that's right. So they make a decision that says, you can't have them because they're exempt under Section 33 of the

F-O-I Act, which is sort of national, which is cabinet. So can't you call anything a cabinet? Like, shouldn't Annabelle Crabs' kitchen cabinet show of being completely confidential? Well, I think it should have. So they make a claim that under the law, it's exempt. And I then said, well, I actually don't think that the cabinet is, the national cabinet is a cabinet for the purpose of the FI Act.

And I challenged that, firstly to the Information Commissioner, So he said, well, this issue is too big. She decided not to make a decision that allowed me to go to the AAT, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. And when they got it, they said, oh, this is quite a big case. You've got to put a federal court judge onto it. And then, you know, the Commonwealth decided to put a QC to argue their case. And I had to dig around and try and find an SC to argue the case.

And that's what happened. And Justice White of the federal court, even, you know, sitting as a presidential member, with the AAT basically came out and said National Cabinet is not a cabinet. You can't take something that's a, the Prime Minister can't take a cat and say, it's a dog. It doesn't work like that. Yeah. And, I mean, that was, it was huge. Like, you basically got to then read all the documents that had been being kept secret for

more than a year, wasn't it? Yeah, and the funny thing it was, it wasn't sensitive stuff. Look, I accept that when you're sitting around the cabinet table and the prime minister says, I want to do this and Anastay Palishe says, no, I'm going to do something different, that those deliberations, those conversations ought to be held confidential. But the brief that goes in on the safety of children and, you know, the other advice, we ought to be able to see that

and we ought to be able to see the decision. So I respect the deliberations ought to be held confidential. and so did Justice White, but not the advice that goes in there. Look, if we'd taken that approach in New South Wales last year with our lockdown, if we'd actually known what the health advice was that was being provided to the government, we wouldn't have had to just trust Gladys Berrigi-Clean when she said, we always follow the health advice, even though the rumour was that they didn't do that. I mean, how could she possibly get up and say, we always follow the health advice if we knew

that she wasn't? The government would fall to pieces. Exactly, but then you'd have truth in politics, and that could be a very dangerous thing as well. Has there been consequences from that decision? Has it sort of brought other people out F-O-Iing other things? Yes, it has. I think one of my greatest achievements as a senator will possibly be the fact I made F-O-I sexy. Okay, so I know there are lots of people that have now used the process to seek access to National Cabinet documents and other and other documents.

get calls to my office now with people saying, can you tell me how to do an FOI? It's actually a pretty easy thing to do. It's just the process that follows that where the government always just says, no, you can't have, you can't have access to documents. And did it cost you money? Yes, it did. It cost me about $990 for the application fee to the AAT, which I paid personally. But because I won, I got most of it back.

So it's okay. And I take that money. I use that for the next FI challenge. None of the medical advice contained in the Chaser report should legally be considered medical advice. The Chaser Report. Obviously, there was a little, there was an attempt at secrecy at which you managed to get away, which brings us to sort of the federal ICAC, which I know you've been very strong about. What happened?

Why did we not? Because Scott Morrison promised to have a federal ICAC three and a half years ago. But Charles, we would if I'd, if only the other members of the cabinet had taken his deal on the discrimination bill, we'd have it right now. Exactly. So, but what's going on there? It wasn't, it mustn't have been a core promise. I don't know. But look, I just don't think that the Prime Minister wants one.

If you look at all of the things that happen, I know, I remember listening to a podcast you did with Katie Gallowhoo talked about in the lead-up to the election, the government basically spending taxpayers' money on car parks in marginal seats. Now, just to explain to your listeners, all public funds must be spent on the basis of merit and need, okay? You can't take taxpayers' money and spend it on a car park because you get a personal benefit out of it by way of getting re-elected. That is corruption. And, you know, we've had sports wroughts, we've had blind trusts, we've had water buybacks that are just, just odd pricing for, you know, really, really high pricing for the Commonwealth and buying back water. We've had people being appointed to the AAT, highly paid jobs, very secure jobs that aren't on the face of it qualified. I don't think the government wants any of that looked at because I think some of them would get into a lot of trouble.

So on the face of what we know now, Rex, if there's a hung parliament, if the Senate has a role in determining who becomes prime minister or which bills are passed, based on what's been said and done, who are you inclined to support? So you're talking about if there's an election. Well, firstly, in the Senate, I don't get to. to decide who will be government. That's a matter for the House. So government is formed in the House of Representatives. So I don't get to make that decision if I get re-elected. But I don't look at this from a Labour or Liberal or left or right perspective.

I look at it from a right or wrong perspective. I'll work with the government if I think what they're doing is good. And I'll work with the opposition if I think what the government is doing is bad. And it doesn't matter who's in government. that's actually the role of an independent. We're not constrained by a party who says you can or can't raise an issue. We see things we don't like or we do like and we raise them and we use all of the tools available to us,

whether it's an inquiry, whether it's media, whether it's a speech in Parliament, a question across the chamber to a minister. We have all these tools that are available and we are unconstrained in what we do. my job is to cause public interest trouble it's a great job I love it and and by doing that you get good outcomes I love the idea of public interest trouble I kind of want to do that that's what my daughter the other day was just asking me these questions on text I was sitting in the Senate chamber and she was obviously doing some assignment and she was asking me what was your

first job dad what was your second job what's your job what's your job what's your dream job. I'm in my dream job. I'm in my dream job because actually I have no one who's my boss other than the South Australian people. I'm very mindful of that. But I, you know, the prime minister, if the prime minister doesn't like what I'm doing, that's even better because it attracts more attention to whatever it is that I'm raising. You know, it's just, it's just fantastic. I've got the best job in the world. And what frustrates me is there's all these other backbenchers who you know who basically sit in their offices waiting for instructions they're not off doing FOIs they're not off raising you know contentious issues because they're

all basically trying to move themselves to a point where they may one day become a minister and I'm never going to be a minister I just want to get things sorted out and I don't also want to take on the world and make it perfect I just want to make it better every day you know every day I want to make do something where you know what the world's a slightly better place. It's been a big cycle for independence. We've seen a lot of people running in lower house seats, some of the kind of climate change-focused independence and so on.

What do you think is going to happen in this election? Do you think that the Australian people are going to vote for a lot more people like you, even in the lower house? Well, I think one of the problems we've got is people have just lost confidence in both of the major parties. And that means they have to look somewhere else to plant their vote. and there are a lot of very capable people who, you know, who are independents where they can land a vote. And I think it is going to be a very interesting election in that regard.

We've got, you know, hopefully a situation where, well, you know, if we just step back to this week, this week in the parliament, we saw that it was the independence that led in the religious discrimination bill, moving the amendment that ultimately caused what was a very bad bill to end up dying on its way to the Senate. Meanwhile in the Senate, I was doing things like disallowing some outrageous regulations that the treasurer had put in place. We were doing all the hard yards. We've got some great independence in the parliament. And I think people are now looking and that and going, you know, that's not a bad way to go. I think it's going to be a very interesting election. Well, I mean, here in New South Wales, our ICAC was brought in

when there was a hung parliament in the lower house. And Nick Griner did a deal with the independent saying, well, I'll bring in an ICAC if you vote me back in, which became very ironic because then Nick kind of got chucked out by the ICA. But will the upper house index, Like, say a piece of Federal IAC legislation goes through in the next Parliament and there's a balance of power in the Senate, does that mean you get a big say in the amendments to sort of make the bill better? Like I assume if Labor does get in, they will bring in a Federal ICAC bill, but it will be limited in scope because they are a major party. Is there a – like, will there be a role or will it be something where – because –

they've got a majority in the lower house there's not a huge amount that you can do from the upper house. No, it's the same as what happens now where the government controls the lower house. I always, when people come to Parliament and the green bells ring which is the House of Reps, I always say, look, we already know what the answer

is with the vote. You know, the Senate's much more exciting. It's almost a lottery. You can watch and see what happens with the legislation there. But, you know, the Labor Party may come in. They may well bring in an ICAC bill, there'll be pressure from particularly New South Wales

Labor senators. There'll be some Labor senators and members, and there'll be some that have got skeletons in their closet that will not want it to be perhaps as strong as is necessary. And that becomes the job of both the independence in the lower house and in the upper house to put that pressure on. Because you're going to have a situation where

if Labor were in power, in the Senate, both Labor and the Liberals may be comfortable with a not-so-teethy ICAC. That's why independents are really, really important. We've got people like me that can make a lot of noise. Jackie Lambie, she's pretty good at making noise and drawing attention. And the politics is about positioning and pressure. That's what we do. We put pressure for a better outcome. And, yeah, independence are really good for that. And, I mean, in the past we've seen senators, Brian Harrodin was very good at this,

cutting deals on something else that's less important to them to get the things that are important to them over the line. In terms of your hierarchy of things that you want to see in the next time of the Parliament, if you're re-elected, how high is the federal ICAC on that list?

It's absolutely right at the top there. Because I think most South Australian, and indeed most people across Australia want to have the confidence in their government and in their parliament to do the right thing and without a federal ICAC you can basically assume that there is at least some corruption taking place.

My view is it has to be an ICAC with great teeth and I say that because the success of an ICAC is if it's really, really got a strong bite, then no one will do anything wrong. If it's weak, people will try and cut corners. They'll try and do sneaky things. It's got to be an eye-cack with teeth.

Well, I hate to disappoint you, but based on the New South Wales experience, having an eye-cack with teeth, people will still do things that are wrong. They just might get caught. Lots of people in jail as a result of years after it came into disease. Now, before we go, I just got one last question, which is that there has been a lot of sexual misconduct in Parliament. House over the last few years.

And I'm just wondering, have they done anything to, you know, solve the problem of really alluring desks that is plagued public house? So Kate Jenkins hands down her report that talks about sort of workplace standards. And look, no, I just don't understand how we get into. a situation where there's sexual misconduct taking place. It just, well, maybe I do understand it, but it just doesn't, it just doesn't fit in my thinking. But if I look at what happened this week, one of the recommendations of Kate Jenkins was to make sure that we have a safe and sort of responsibly run workplace.

And what does the Prime Minister do? On Wednesday night, he runs the House of Reps through to 5am in the morning. You know, just, you know, so, and that was done for political reasons. Nothing to do. You know, everyone else is out in the streets wondering about the cost of living, age care, a whole range of really important issues. And the Prime Minister's got this religious discrimination bill that he pumps through the Parliament and makes people sit until 5 a.m. in the morning.

And I just go, you know what, hasn't got it. The sexual misconduct in Parliament House, there's lots of power differentials there, and I can see how that creates a problem. There's long hours, there's alcohol, there's people who sort of live in this sort of claustrophobic world who are trying to advance themselves. This takes leadership. And I'm talking about leadership by members. and senators, and ultimately, if it's the members and senators doing things wrong, leadership

by the party leaders. And that is an area where I think we've been let down in the past, and I hope that that changes. Well, Rex, you've made the most of your term so far replacing Nick Xenophon in the Senate and all the best for what's ahead. Thank you very much, guys. Our gear is from road microphones, and we are part of the ACASCRETA network. Catch you next time.