Craig Emerson MP. Subjects: offensive menu at Liberal function; Mal Brough; gender issues; leadership; Tony Abbott’s promises.

THE HON DR CRAIG EMERSON MP. 
MINISTER FOR TERTIARY EDUCATION, SKILLS, SCIENCE AND RESEARCH

MINISTER FOR TRADE AND COMPETITIVENESS MINISTER ASSISTING THE PRIME MINISTER ON ASIAN CENTURY POLICY

Transcript Doorstop, Canberra

12 June 2013


CRAIG EMERSON: Last night a chef who worked in a restaurant in late-march circulated on Twitter a vile and vulgar menu that was used in a fundraising function for Mal Brough at which Joe Hockey was the guest. This menu makes vulgar and vile references to the Prime Minister of Australia. During the course of the night and today, questions were asked of Mr Hockey as to whether he was at the restaurant. He has had to concede that he was at the restaurant, but he says that he didn’t see the menu.
This menu would have been the talk of the top table. There’s no doubt that this was a menu that was not only vulgar and vile but designed as a fund-raising menu, and it would have been a hoot at the top table for top Liberals. For Joe Hockey to now concede that he attended the fundraiser but to pretend that he was unaware of the menu is absurd – is absurd. And Mr Hockey should be honest about this and say that he was there, it was inappropriate and that he apologises for it. The Liberals have said that it is disgusting and vile, and unacceptable, but only after the menu has come to light. This is just another in a series of vulgar, violent and extreme statements from the Liberal Party that Tony Abbott leads.
Last Friday night, Steve Ciobo talked about slitting the Prime Minister’s throat. The language that is being used by Mr Abbott’s Liberals is increasingly violent, it’s vulgar, it’s vile and it’s extreme. When Mr Abbott was asked about Mr Ciobo comments yesterday he said that ‘it’s just a metaphor’ and defended it as a matter of free speech. Free speech? The LNP is stopping the Federal Schools Minister and the Prime Minister from speaking at schools. So let’s have no more hypocrisy from the Liberals about free speech, their freedom to make disgraceful comments about the Prime Minister. It appears that the chef circulated this menu in response to Joe Hockey’s statement on Twitter last night that the Prime Minister has never had respect and doesn’t deserve it and will never have respect. There was a response to that from Mr Hockey. I call on Mr Hockey to have a bit of decency, show a bit of respect and apologise for going to this fundraising function without raising the issue of the menu, a menu that would have been the talk of the top table.
REPORTER: It is quite plausible that he did not see that menu.
EMERSON: It’s not plausible. It is implausible that a menu that was supposed to be humorous but in fact was vulgar and vile would not have been the subject of conversation. The reason that the menu would have been prepared in that way in the first place was that it was a fundraising function and obviously a matter of great mirth amongst the Liberals who were there. And when that was discussed, when they were having their belly laughs, Mr Hockey should have said then that this is disgraceful and unacceptable.
REPORTER: But you don’t know that that’s what happened?
EMERSON: It’s implausible; it is implausible that a menu at a relatively small gathering that was prepared for the very purpose about making vile and vulgar remarks about the Prime Minister of Australia would not have been discussed.
REPORTER: Do you know what was on the table? Was it on the table?
EMERSON: Well, you should follow up with the chef who was there. He is continuing in the Twitter feed right now and he confirmed … because I was asked on Twitter about this and what did I think, and I said ‘I think we should establish whether the menu was genuine and whether Mr Hockey was actually there’. I think that was a reasonable response from me. The chef said ‘yes’, the menu was genuine and ‘yes’, Mr Hockey was there. Why do we know that? Because the chef was there.
REPORTER: Is it a question of was there more than one copy of that menu or was it one menu that perhaps some people didn’t actually see.
EMERSON: Well, again, the chef says that the menu was there. It was available for people. If you’re going to do it as a matter of absurd mirth you don’t do it for one person. The whole purpose of the menu would have been to circulate it. That would be the purpose. Why would you do a menu like that and give it to one person at a fundraising dinner? That defies logic.
REPORTER: What’s it say about Mal Brough? Should he resign?
EMERSON: Well, Mr Brough is a completely unsuitable candidate for election for the House of Representatives. But Mr Abbott has stood by Mr Brough as a personal friend through the entire Ashby matter. When Mr Brough denied any knowledge of the Ashby matter, denied ever speaking to Mr Ashby, had to admit that not only had he spoken to him three times but he helped organise legal advice, and was involved all the way through in the judgement that was delivered in trying to get Mr Slipper disgraced on the front pages of the newspaper. Mr Brough lied his way through that whole episode, and Mr Abbott absolutely threw his weight behind him. Mr Abbott was asked had he read the judge’s verdict. He said ‘no he hadn’t’, but he fully supported Mal Brough. Again, today, Mr Abbott says he fully supports Mal Brough. Mal Brough is unsuitable to be a candidate at the next Federal election, but he’s right up the alley of Abbott’s Liberals. Because Mr Abbott has dragged the Liberal Party to the hard right, and through that you see this vulgar, vile and violent language. It is a very bad development in Australian politics. We have sitting Members of Parliament talking about slitting the Prime Minister’s throat. This is disgusting stuff.
REPORTER: You’ve been to your share of union conferences and so on, and they often tell blue jokes and say crude things.
EMERSON: They do. That’s right. And I have not approved of them. And there was an event last year where these sorts of matters were raised and remorse was expressed by a number of MPs. I was one of those that walked out. So I think I’ve got credibility on this matter. It’s not uniquely a Labor, National Party, Democrat, Green issue; it’s an issue of the political discussion that goes on in this country guided by Tony Abbott, who basically has re-endorsed – re-endorsed – Mal Brough today. He stands by him as a personal friend, through the whole Ashby affair, through the lies where Mal Brough himself said to the media ‘yes, I misled you’. He actually said to the media ‘I lied to you’, and Tony Abbott thinks that’s OK.
REPORTER: Women are questioning the judgement of Julia Gillard and her speech yesterday. Do you think it’s the right thing to raise abortion as an election issue?
EMERSON: Well this is an issue of special concern to women, but also a concern to men – as it should be. It’s an issue for which there are policy considerations, and it was legitimate for the Prime Minister to raise it.
REPORTER: What do you make of the timing of that speech yesterday and the release of this today?
EMERSON: There is no coincidence from our side of politics between the timing of the speech and the release of the menu today. But it is clear that Joe Hockey’s tweet responding to the Prime Minister’s speech, saying that the Prime Mnister has never had respect, doesn’t deserve it and will never have it, led the chef to circulate the menu. That was a decision for the chef. Now I’ve covered this because you might not have seen the very latest: the chef says that he did, in fact, pass this on to various people at the time. I think it’s fair to assume, including on the part of Peter van Onselen – and I’ve seen the tweet that was sent to Peter that he didn’t see it: that’s fair enough; that’s fair enough. But it’s clear that if you look at the twitter feed that this was a response to Joe Hockey talking about how the Prime Minister has never had respect, never will have respect and doesn’t deserve it. The chef decided to re-circulate this menu last menu last night. It had nothing to do with the Labor Party.
REPORTER: Kevin Rudd’s been practically mobbed in Sydney today; he’s very popular. Do you concede that? He’s very popular in the community, and many people in the community want him back.
EMERSON: What I’m quite happy to say is that when leaders and former leaders go into the community they’re often mobbed. When I was with the Prime Minister at Marsden State High School we could not easily move from one side of the hall to the other. She was mobbed at that. Now, the truth is a sandwich was lobbed five metres away, fell nowhere near the Prime Minister, and that became the story. The truth is, however, she was mobbed. Where the Prime Minister goes … I remember she was at Liverpool … I wasn’t there, but people say she was mobbed. When Kevin Rudd goes out he gets mobbed. When Bob Hawke goes out he gets mobbed.
REPORTER: They don’t say to Bob Hawke ‘we want you back as Prime Minister’.
EMERSON: I’m responding to a question about ‘is it true that a lot of people come up to Kevin Rudd?’ Yes they do. They come up to Julia Gillard.
REPORTER: A lot of them are saying that they want him to be the Labor leader.
EMERSON: Well they’re expressing a view and this is this situation: Julia Gillard will lead this Government, this Party, to the next election. Kevin Rudd has said there are no circumstances under which he would return to the leadership. That’s that. That’s the end of the matter.
REPORTER: On the abortion issue, Mr Abbott also said that the Prime Minister is playing a gender card effectively and risks causing divisions along gender lines in the community. How do you respond to that?
EMERSON: Well, already there are issues that are more relevant to women than they are to men. So we shouldn’t talk about childcare, because that’s an issue which is more relevant to women than it is to men? That we shouldn’t talk about violence in rugby league because that’s an issue more of relevance to men than to women. I mean, not every issue is equally relevant to men and women. That should not disqualify it from being discussed.
REPORTER: Have you been encouraged by Bill Shorten’s comments endorsing the Prime Minister?
EMERSON: Bill Shorten has made his position clear time and time again. He made his position clear on Sunday night. Bill Shorten made his position clear again today. He made his position clear before that. So, there’s nothing surprising about Bill Shorten’s comments.
REPORTER: You don’t think his language has changed on his support for the Prime Minister?
EMERSON: No.
REPORTER: Do you personally believe that abortion is at risk of becoming a political plaything with the Coalition?
EMERSON: I think is a legitimate topic for discussion in the lead-up to a Federal election.
REPORTER: So why is it a legitimate topic of discussion when it’s a matter for the states and territories? Why is that a legitimate matter?
EMERSON: Well there are issues. There are issues. I’m not saying whether they will be re-raised or not, but the Medicare funding of abortion procedures is a Federal issue.
REPORTER: But Tony has said that nothing will change.
EMERSON: You said that it’s a state issue. It is not exclusively a state issue.
REPORTER: Do you believe Tony Abbott, though, when he says that where the Federal Government can change laws, he won’t change them?
EMERSON: Tony Abbott has said a lot of things in the past. Tony Abbott has said that he gave, that he would give – and he did give – a rock-solid, iron-clad promise that he would not tamper with the Medicare safety net. After that election, one of the first acts of the re-elected Howard Government was to change the Medicare safety net. Tony Abbot has said that you can only believe him when he’s written a statement down. That would be the only circumstance in which there is Gospel truth. In all other circumstances he reserves the right to change his position or to break a commitment. Why would I believe that Tony Abbott is incapable of breaking commitments when he has done it time and time again? Thanks very much.