Podcast interview - Regen Strategic's, The Pulse Podcast

PATRICK GARDNER, HOST: Hello and welcome to this week's episode of The Pulse, Regen Strategic's policy and politics podcast. I'm the co-host today, Patrick Gardner, joined with my other co-host, Libby Lyons. Welcome, Libby.

LIBBY LYONS, HOST : Thank you, Pat. Always good to be here. : Always. Always topical, always too much to discuss and squeeze into an episode, but we'll see how we go. : Have you started growing your rocket yet? : No, but I need to scatter some seeds, it won't take long with the rain.

Okay, yeah, keep holding me to that, keep holding me to that. We'll, see if our guest has a green thumb or two as well. Great name, great initials, I would say.

Patrick Gorman, the Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service. We are delighted to have you - in your electorate, the electorate of Perth. Welcome.

It's been a busy couple of weeks in Canberra, and in your electorate. PATRICK GORMAN, ASSISTANT MINISTER TO THE PRIME MINISTER: Thank you, Patrick, and thank you, Libby, and thanks for having me on the podcast. It has been a busy period of time.

We have just kind of concluded that sort of arc from Budget, to the Budget sell, to the next bit of parliament, where you're actually trying to get those Budget bills through the parliament. So, it feels like there has been a lot on the agenda. And that's before you start to look out to the world at large. : Yeah, so you mentioned the B-word: Budget.

The impression we had from - Libby and I had - from previous discussions was it perhaps was broader than what was originally anticipated, maybe at the start of the year. Are you able to take us into the thinking around the Budget construction and the way in which you're interpreting the reaction and the response to that? : Firstly, it does build upon - it's our fifth Budget in four years - but it builds upon a lot of the commitments we had taken to the election, around making sure we got that money for Medicare Urgent Care Clinics, getting the $1,000 instant tax deduction in there and actually into the Budget and into the parliament.

So there's a range of those things that we've been talking about for a long period of time, as well as sustaining some of those things that have had incredible take up, like the 5 per cent deposit scheme. But one of the things the Prime Minister had been saying for a long period of time was that the 2025 election reflected our ambitions. It wasn't the limit of our ambitions.

And if I think about the big challenges that we see in the world right now, you need government's that are prepared to make difficult but necessary calls for the long term, and that's how we see this Budget. It's dealing with a problem that has been going for far too long, which is an intergenerational inequality in terms of access to the housing market, and some of the damage that does, not just in terms of people not being able to get into a home of their own, but it limits aspiration because it makes people think, well 'why would I bother saving, why would I bother striving in my career if even though I do everything right, I can't buy a home of my own.' So it was time for us to do something about that, and there's been calls for years and years about serious tax reform, and we were happy to be the government that took those calls seriously and did something about it. : But I guess if a government explicitly rules out specific changes to tax reform, or whatever it might be, as you did, as an elector haven't people got the right to say 'well, what is the value of pre-election commitments?' : I understand why people will ask those questions, but the way I've approached it is I've written to everyone in my electorate explaining what I said in 2025 and explaining why I'm comfortable having the conversation about why we need to change, and opening up that conversation as broadly as we can.

I did a housing forum yesterday with about 150 people, hosted with Clare O'Neil and the state Housing Minister John Carey, talking about why we see these changes as being necessary. I'm comfortable fronting up, as I'm doing right now, saying, yes, we had a view, we've now come to a different view, here's why; but also here are the benefits of that change. Here are the benefits when it comes to getting some 75,000 more Australians into a home of their own.

The benefits in getting some of the distortions out of our tax system, because if you've got a tax system that has distortions and loopholes that are only available to some taxpayers, it actually undermines the integrity of the entire tax system. : But the stats are showing us that the bulk of investors that use negative gearing, for instance are teachers, nurses, and traders.

Aren't you then specifically targeting and causing financial grief to your traditional voter base? : If I think about teachers, my mum and dad were both primary school teachers. I grew up in Fremantle. Our first home was one of the cheapest homes you could get in Fremantle.

It was opposite Fremantle Prison, and I am old enough that when we were living opposite Fremantle Prison that was a full working prison, so it wasn't - : Probably the safest place to live then, Patrick. : Mum and Dad would say they sometimes get - : There was a breakout or two, wasn't there? : It wasn't the most secure. It's a wonderful World Heritage asset. But it wasn't the most secure place.

Mum and day would say that every now and then they'd get a phone call from the prison - they had a phone tree they'd call through of the nearby residents, and it was right across the road - saying "don't open your door tonight." And then they'll call again when everything was under control. : That's very quaint community engagement, isn't it? : The only reason I say it, my late husband was a criminal lawyer, and I visited one of the regional prisons with him once.

He had to go and visit a client, and I sat in the car. I said "I'm very nervous about this." He said "I think you're probably in the safest place in the state, sitting outside here", that's why I ask. : Back to the substance of your question. So, Mum and Dad were teachers, very modest incomes, fortunate enough to be able to buy into the housing market to get their first home.

But what we want is for those teachers or nurses or tradies who want to have those benefits of negative gearing - and good on them, that's great when they've got that extra cash flow, they can make those choices. Let's invest it in the productive bit of the economy, which is the job-creating part of the economy, which is new home builds. And then also handing down opportunity for others who want to get an affordable rental.

So no one is missing out on that opportunity to negatively gear. It's just the direction of travel for what properties they will invest in. It'll be those new builds.

And that also means that you've got something where you're saying, 'okay, I'm providing a new home,' more into the market. You're getting the financial benefits, and there's also a serious productive economy job benefit. Building new homes is one of the great job creators. : But we've got a skill shortage in the construction industry.

And any skilled workers are moving into the big construction areas where they're earning the big bucks. I mean, look at Victoria - huge, huge shortage in the housing building market, because they're all working on the big projects. So, you know, I guess the proof in the pudding will be in the eating.

So, it's a few years out before we will actually see the benefit of these structural tax reforms. But I guess that there are, you know, from where I sit, the backlash from the Budget suggests that perhaps whilst you may have believed that you had a mandate to do this, that the voters might be thinking, well, you didn't. : I guess the other way to maybe ask that consideration, Patrick, was the backlash or that noise as anticipated in terms of its ferocity or the duration one or two weeks post the Budget? : I think there's a few things that drive it that are worth noting.

Firstly, is the idea of a Budget bounce that is often put forward by people, particularly in the media, that is always looked for but is rarely a reality of Budgets. I think you know there's always incentives for those to look at, well, what might be new and interesting, rather than what's the thing that's going to impact the most people. And the thing that will impact the most people from this Budget will be that $250 Working Australians Tax Offset, that's going to benefit some 13 million Australians, regardless of their investment circumstances.

So, there's these big things that I don't know why my political opponents don't want to talk about that. I was equally bemused that the Greens Party was out criticising the Budget, and they had this line that I couldn't fathom, which was that the Greens were out pushing that this is somehow a Budget for the top 1 per cent of Australians. And I thought you couldn't get further from reality than some of the social media posts you're seeing from the Greens Party.

The tax concessions are focused on working Australians, we're focused on getting those lower middle income Australians into homes of their own, the biggest housing program since post-World War II construction from a Commonwealth government. I couldn't believe some of the commentary. And so you get some of that, and you go, okay - I think we're also just in a time where politics is noisy. : Yeah, and there is limited political capital in being positive for anyone outside of the government at the moment.

So backing in the Budget isn't the thing to do at present. : And it is a very noisy landscape at the moment, and the sort of rise in popularity of One Nation is making it even noisier. : I know, so Clive Palmer is feeling like he's missing out, and so he's decided to come back for yet another crack, which is extraordinary. : Yeah we saw some mail outs. : Can't keep a good man down, Patrick. : No letterbox is safe in Australia! : It never was. : Or mobile phone actually, remember the text messages. : The text messages, oh my god the Clive Palmer text messages. : Goodness. : Is there legislation to close that loophole, from memory?

I think there are a few tweaks to crack down on some of the phishing and spamming. : It was extraordinary. : And some of the requirements around being really clear about where that material is coming from, that's been strengthened. : So the other topic that is raging at the moment is One Nation's push into WA. Physically last night, at time of recording, with Pauline Hanson doing an event out in Midland.

They are surging in the polls, there's no denying that, that's unprecedented. How are you navigating the board, seemingly, being flipped? That has some implications for the Government as much as it does for the Liberal Party and the National Party in Opposition. : I think the thing that is distinct from where I sit and my colleagues sit in government, to what I would now call the four populist parties, is that we have this responsibility to actually get on and do things.

We are the elected government of the day, and while other parties have these opportunities to kind of just appear when it suits them, we have to front up every day, we have to deliver for the Australian people every day, and we have to implement practical policies that make a difference. I think that's becoming one of the big divides in Australian politics, is you've got the populist parties, of which I would have said for a period of time was One Nation and the Greens Party.

But now you're really seeing the Liberal Party and the National Party join the populist side of politics - it is no longer left or right. You've got populism as the driving policy force for those four parties, and that leaves Labor as kind of the only practical party of government left in a range of these debates. Then you can think about when it comes to some of the challenges of migration, the reality is: some of what is now being proposed by both Angus Taylor and the One Nation political party would send a wrecking ball through the WA economy. : Yeah.

And it's just not consistent with Australia's evolution. : It's not. And nor is it consistent with how we've portrayed ourselves to the world for a long period of time. I was shocked to see in another podcast, which I won't mention by name, Senator Hanson repeating some of those 'swamped by Asians' comments that I remember more than 20 years ago.

Those comments reverberated around the world, and people would reference them, and that has stuck as this kind of reflection on the nature of Australian politics. : Can you understand where a lot of people are coming from though? There are many, many families out there that are struggling to pay their energy bills, they're struggling to put three good meals on the table a day.

They see people, immigrants coming in and receiving first home buyers grants and things like that. And so I think that they sit there, sit back and say, 'well, here we are, we've been working hard, we continue to work hard, we pay our taxes, we're not getting much of a free ride, in fact, we're doing it really, really tough, and there are others who are new to this country, who aren't'.

Now I agree with you, this country has been built on immigration, on Greeks, Italians, Vietnamese, Chinese, you name it. We are blessed. But I think that people are doing it so hard right now because the economy is so tough, that their natural instinct is to blame someone and it's a big easy target for them.

I think also Pauline Hanson has never strayed from her message for 20 odd years, she's been at that same message. And I think that's probably another thing that some voters are saying 'well, at least we know where she stands'. So I think, from my perspective, I can understand why people - I'm not saying I agree with it - but I think I can understand why she's gaining in popularity, and the party's gaining in popularity.

Because people are hurting. She's got the same message she's had for 20 years and it's providing them with a feeling of stability, I think. : Yeah, well they can attach a grievance to it. : I think I'd start with the base economics for people in Australia, where you're feeling this conflict-driven inflation really eat away at people's pay packets and really eat away at household budgets.

What we were talking about before with housing, where it feels like some of these things that were just really standard bits of the Australian dream, or the Australian bargain, are sort of getting out of reach. Of course, I understand why people feel those frustrations. I think the difference for me is that I accept my responsibility to have difficult conversations about what is realistic and what is practical.

You can just run with the grievance, but that only gets you so far because it doesn't get you a solution or an outcome at the end of the day. I think that's the discussion that we're having as a country right now, and I'm happy to be part of that discussion. Because yes, many of those frustrations that people feel are legitimate, and it's okay for people to be frustrated that they see that their kids aren't going to be able to get into the housing market.

I want to do something about that. Or their pay packet is not stretching far enough. I want to do something about that too.

And that's where I think it's important as well, and every party should experience this, is that there is proper policy scrutiny. The reality is that when it comes to what the One Nation political party offers, they've opposed increases to award and minimum wages. They have opposed our tax cuts for working Australians.

They have opposed greater investment in Medicare. Now, those are things that will only make some of those grievances that people have worse. It won't solve any of the challenges.

And I think ultimately the Australian people are deeply practical. That is what I'd encourage everyone in the political debate, whether it be the Greens or One Nation or the Liberals or the Nationals, have clear practical policies, and I think that has to be the expectation we hold of all political parties. I'm happy for myself and the Labor Party federally to be held to account at that standard, but it's also the standard I'll apply to others. : Do you anticipate that fragmentation of the primary vote to continue through the course of this term?

Do you see the present status of One Nation in the - if you take the hot polls, early 30s as their primary. Are you seeing that as a high water mark, or something that stays the same for the remainder of the term? : The approach I've taken this term is similar to the approach I took last term. I remember there were polls that told me all of these things that were going to happen, and ultimately, if polls were always the same, they would be very boring.

No newspaper would run them, and you'd sort of question who was actually doing the work. Of course, it is one of the entertaining bits that drives the political discussion, but right now, for me I can't control what a pollster is going to report in the Sydney Morning Herald or the Australian, and I don't think, given the serious challenges that Australia faces right now - we've got massive global conflicts that are over a long way physically from us, but having real impacts on our economy.

You have got the challenges of inflation, all of these things. I think it's appropriate that you've got governments that just sort of focus on their day job. : I think too, we're 18 months or more out, a lot can happen in that time. : Definitely, it could last three months. : Exactly, and I think the other issue is that people have these intentions, but once they hit a polling booth and they go in to vote, I honestly believe old habits often die hard.

It'll be interesting to see, all sorts of things could implode before then, and I suspect they might. : But you'd think, similar to the Farrer By-election, I mean maybe that's the outlier, because it's a by-election at a fairly early stage in the term. There's probably going to be a few more three-cornered, four-cornered races around the country. : I think Victoria will be - : Yeah, and state elections before then.

It will either cement certain views or maybe act as a bit of a pressure valve. : I believe that as parliamentarians, we have to treat each other with a level of respect and for the people that have sent us there. I congratulated David Farley as the new member for Farrer when he came in and was sworn in, and it was nice to be able to do that. Even though there are big differences in where we want to take the country, I think you can still have a base level of respect.

The other thing is - I said to him, I came in at a by-election. I came in at a by-election here in Perth in 2018. It is a different experience, a different way to enter the parliament.

And by-elections - my contest then was a strange contest, because the Liberal Party didn't contest. So they are always a little bit different to the nature of a general election where there's all the noise, all the bells, all the whistles, the 33-day campaign, and of course the massive level of scrutiny that you see on individual leaders. : Can I thank you for saying - because I think we often don't see that respect for parliamentarians across all sides of the chamber, and so thank you for doing that, and thank you for telling us that you went and congratulated because that is the decent civil thing to do.

And I know a lot of politicians do that, and the average person doesn't see that. : Just sees the adversarial, 20 minutes of Question Time. : They do. Question Time and it's often very disrespectful. But I think it's important to point out, as you do, that generally people do treat each other in the corridors of power with respect. : And it wasn't just me, there were a range of people from the crossbench parties doing the same, even people from the Liberal Party, the National Party - : Surprised about that Patrick. : - who are probably still licking some wounds out of that contest. : But also a scary thing for him to come in, as you would know from a by-election, because you get a whole cohort when you have a general election, but when you're coming in by yourself and you sit in that chamber for the first time, I can only imagine how terrifying that is. : You really stand out as the new kid in class.

You really do. : So, thank you for bringing back that respect and telling us about it, because I think it's important. I think people forget that that actually does happen. : Just drawing back to one of your roles as, I guess someone who's ultimately accountable for the public service federally. How have you observed the public service as a whole changing in response to this noisy landscape externally?

Lots of very polarised views on policy positions, parliamentarians, politics, public servants. How does the integrity and confidence in the public sector hold through those periods of time? : One of the things that myself and my senior Minister in that portfolio, Katy Gallagher, did in the last term was introduce an additional value for the public service, and that was the value of stewardship.

This was really about trying to make sure that the service itself understood that it is an enduring institution that exists beyond one government, or one side of politics or one particular minister, it has an enduring role. And you see that most clearly demonstrated when the public service does, at election time, prepare the blue book and the red book. Prepared to implement the policies and agenda of whomever should be elected as the Government of Australia at a general election.

Some of those things about the public service really being there to serve the Australian public, and to serve the decisions that the Australian public make through their democracy, that is really embedded. That idea of stewardship, and thinking a bit more long-term - because ultimately I'd like to think I think long-term, but I also accept that the only thing I can guarantee is that I have the privilege of being a member of parliament for the term that you're elected for.

And you have always got to respect the voters and not assume, ever, that you're guaranteed anything other than what you earn at an election. But the public service has that ongoing role, they have to help governments, of all persuasions, implement their agenda. : Going a little bit deeper into the public service, and an initiative that you've been responsible for, and that is introducing - trying to get more First Nations leaders into SES bands - which for those who don't know, are the senior levels of the public service.

I know that you've more than met your numerical target of 100, I think it's at 111 now, in SES band one. : You are well-informed. : It's sort of an area that I'm very interested in, as you know, statistics and gender and diversity. But a couple of questions that I think are important, Patrick, because actually meeting the target is always the easy part. We know, and I know from when I ran the agency and worked with organisations, that the hard part is maintaining those targets and monitoring them to ensure that we don't end up with an over representation or we go back and end up where we were before because that monitoring is really important.

So what are the retention rates looking like? And maybe it's too early to know that, and what does progression look like beyond band one? I think that's important too, and then if you can talk to me about that, and how you plan on monitoring this and making sure that we can sustain it.

I then would like to talk to you about the issue of merit, so. : Great. Okay, firstly, it has been a success. And we didn't know when we set out to do that SES 100 target whether or not it would work.

But we knew it was worth trying, because what we saw in the data across the public service was that we've got quite good First Nations representation amongst the public service at large, but that wasn't being reflected in the senior levels. And so we had to have an intervention. So going out and helping agencies recognise that this wasn't something that was a problem within the Public Service Commission, this was a problem that existed agency by agency.

As a result, in some of the really complex areas of policy, where it is about trying to build genuine partnership with First Nations, we didn't have the expertise in the policy room to do that. So this is ultimately about making sure that we've got the right people in the right jobs to get the outcomes that governments have decided to pursue. You only need to look at the current challenge we have when it comes to the Closing the Gap Report, across a whole range of portfolios.

It doesn't just sit with the National Indigenous Australians Agency. The challenges of closing the gap sit across a whole range of portfolios, which is why in the latest report that the Prime Minister tabled, we now actually have every minister that is responsible for, either a target or a component of a target, signing on. So we've really made sure that it's a collective responsibility piece.

In terms of making sure that it sticks. One of the things you do is you celebrate the success. It's why you're probably able to easily find commentary from both Minister Gallagher and myself about why this has worked, and indeed commentary from the Public Service Commission.

Because if you celebrate success, then people see that's what good looks like. I hope we have started the path to embedding that. We have now seen, consistently, when it comes to work that - Libby I'll pay credit to you for your contributions in this space.

When it comes to gender equality in the Senior Executive Service more generally across the public service, the interventions are less and less each year because that success has stuck, and that success has been celebrated, and it's now what the public service looks like. : One of the things that concerns me, though, is, and I warned against this when I was at the agency, is that you do have to keep monitoring, because there are some departments now who, if they're not already, they're verging on becoming highly feminised, and that's not an outcome we want either.

What we want is genuine balance, and yes, there will always be the pendulum. You will always go from one side to the other, but by-and-large, you've got to have an average over a five or ten year period, where you get sort of 50/50. So I think it is about maintaining scrutiny, keeping your stats together, and ensuring that then becomes sustainable and embedded into the culture. : And there's a big legislative backing for what you've just said, and this is not something that the government I'm part of put in place, but it's what John Howard put in place when he did his public service reforms in 1999.

Which is that the Public Service Act actually says in it that the public service should reflect the Australian public which it serves. And that in my mind is the great stabiliser, because it gives us in some areas - like First Nations, and also in cultural and linguistic diversity - it says we've actually got to set the bar higher than where we're currently performing.

But it also reminds us that that's an ongoing piece of work. The big piece of data we collect every year is the Employment Census Data. We then release that out through what we call the State of the Service Report.

I table that in Parliament each year, and that does give all of that data. And then we give detailed breakdowns to departmental secretaries so they can see exactly what's happening in their agency and how they compare. : Which is great, that competition is fabulous. : People seeing how they compare to their peers, particularly when it's data driven, does make a difference. : Yeah, because it creates a big conversation. : It's a good disinfectant. : It really is.

But I just think it's that monitoring that's really important. Just on the question of merit, I guess I'd just like your response, or know how you respond to the argument that when you design a recruitment process that specifically is targeted to produce a specific or predetermined demographic outcome, the concept of merit, by definition, is compromised. And I think you probably did a very rigorous recruitment process, and I'm sure it was, but for those who might say, 'well, can you guarantee that this was merit-based?' What, what's your response to that? : My response to that is similar to my response when it comes to similar questions that come up when it comes to members of parliament.

Which is ultimately there is so much talent in the public service, there is so much. There will always be, just as there are many more people in the Labor caucus who could make outstanding ministers than we have positions that we can fill. Similarly, in the public service, I meet people who might be an Executive Level one in that real middle management of the public service, and they're outstanding.

There is so much good there. What we just want to make sure is that all the different parts of the capability are getting an equal chance to put themselves forward into those other roles, and we do have some challenges where if people haven't seen people like them in those leadership roles, they just might not put themselves forward. So I think the thing that's been really successful in that SES 100 piece is actually just getting people to apply, not ruling themselves out, and then letting the process go forward, and I think that's been the big success story there. : So you do see it as those SES ones moving up and into the higher SES bands? : Of course, because I want retention.

We know that one of the things is we want to be an employer of choice in the public service, we're in a competition for talent. Smart Australians can apply their talent in a whole range of exciting ways in the private sector and the public sector. I'm in that competition for talent, and part of that means you got to show people career pathways. : Yeah, exactly.

Well, well done on that, because I think it's a fabulous initiative, and I will watch it with interest, and I'll watch the statistics because it's important. : And keep me accountable too. : I will. Don't worry. No worries.

Rely on me for that. : We'll get you back in, progress update. We really appreciate your time. I mean, we've probably restrained ourselves from going outside of Australia's borders, but there is a lot of volatility globally.

There's no insignificant period of time in government, but this term does feel particularly consequential. So, all the best on the return to Canberra. We'll be watching with interest, as Libby said, and thanks once again for your reflections. : Thank you, Patrick.

And thank you, Libby. : Great, see you next time. Subscribe and stay up to date Connect with us PM&C acknowledges the traditional owners and custodians of country throughout Australia and acknowledges their continuing connection to land, water and community. We pay our respects to the people, the cultures and the elders past, present and emerging.