SUBJECTS: Historical rape allegation made against a Cabinet minister; sexual assault allegations in Parliament House; workplace culture in Parliament House; JobSeeker rate; need for public housing.
 

DAVID SPEERS, HOST: Anthony Albanese, welcome to the program.
 

ANTHONY ALBANESE, LEADER OF THE AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY: Good morning, David.
 

SPEERS: When did you first become aware of this allegation?
 

ALBANESE: Well, there have been rumours around Parliament House for a considerable period of time particularly around the Four Corners program, so I had heard rumours about it.
 

SPEERS: Penny Wong says she was first aware in November of 2019. Did she at any point pass this onto you?
 

ALBANESE: No. Penny acted appropriately, though. She provided support services to the woman involved. She checked that it had been reported to the police, as the woman said she would do, and then she also contacted the Adelaide Police around the coronial inquiry that is taking place, to offer her support on what she was told at the time.
 

SPEERS: And that's all fair enough, but do you think Penny Wong should have passed this onto either you or the Prime Minister?
 

ALBANESE: Well, these were, of course, historical allegations, and Penny Wong, I think, acted appropriately.
 

SPEERS: What about the Prime Minister? He, along with Penny Wong and Sarah Hanson-Young who received the letter and the documents that went with it, have all referred it to the Federal Police. Is that adequate? Has the Prime Minister done enough?
 

ALBANESE: Well, the first thing that has got to be said here, David, is I do express sympathy for the family and friends of the woman involved. This is a tragedy. And the current debate and us discussing it would be adding to the hurt of those people. We need to make sure that these are serious allegations, that they are investigated appropriately, and that these issues aren't politically managed. This is a real test. And the Prime Minister must confirm to himself that it remains the case that the minister, who is the subject of these allegations, that it's appropriate for him to stay in his current position.
 

SPEERS: How does the Prime Minister do that?
 

ALBANESE: Well, of course, firstly it is appropriate they be investigated by the authorities. But this now will be a very much a dark cloud over the Parliament and over the Cabinet. The Prime Minister, it's his responsibility. He appoints, solely appoints, the Cabinet. He must assure himself that it is appropriate, that the current position and make-up of the Cabinet can continue. That really is a matter for him. I'm not aware of all of these details clearly, David, that have now come to light in the last couple of days.
 

SPEERS: But when you say he needs to satisfy himself that this Cabinet minister, the subject of this allegation, deserves to be in Cabinet, are you supporting the Greens in suggesting there needs to be some sort of independent investigation called by the Prime Minister here?
 

ALBANESE: No, I'm saying it is a matter for the Prime Minister. I don't seek to politicise this issue, David. What I say is that the Prime Minister must satisfy himself that the current circumstances are appropriate.
 

SPEERS: But aren't the police the best to look into any of this?
 

ALBANESE: And I said that, David. I made that clear. But then also, the Prime Minister will be in a position to make determinations. And that is a matter for him.
 

SPEERS: But how? By weighing evidence himself?
 

ALBANESE: That’s a matter for him, David, that's the point. I'm not trying to politicise this. I'm not trying to second-guess what response he has. But he is in charge of the Cabinet. This is a moment whereby Australians will be looking for, after what has been a very difficult fortnight, common decency to shine through here, and for an appropriate response that isn't about political management, that is about transparency, is about making sure that processes are respected. But then, I think, people will be looking for a resolution. You would be aware, David, that this can't just stay in the current position where it is. It will move on. And the Prime Minister will have decisions to make based upon his assessments.
 

SPEERS: Should he stand the minister aside?
 

ALBANESE: Well, that's a matter for him, David.
 

SPEERS: What do you think?
 

ALBANESE: It is a matter for him. That's what I think. I think the Prime Minister is in charge of the Cabinet. And I think it is a matter for him to find out the details. Obviously, there will be an appropriate investigation of it. It will be difficult, David. That's the difficulty that we face here, is that the woman at the centre of these tragic circumstances has taken her own life. That makes it very difficult.
 

SPEERS: But in terms of the standard that you would adopt as Leader and do adopt as Leader, if there were any sort of historical allegation like this, would you stand a frontbencher aside?
 

ALBANESE: David, one of the things we are not dealing with here is hypotheticals.
 

SPEERS: No.
 

ALBANESE: And, with respect to you, the idea that you would bring out a hypothetical, I don't think it is appropriate. We have specific circumstances here. I'm not seeking to politicise this issue. I'm saying that the Prime Minister will have to make decisions based upon his own assessments.
 

SPEERS: Let's talk more about the bigger issue of the last couple of weeks, stemming from the Brittany Higgins' case and the allegation that she was raped. It is still a little unclear what is going to change in Parliament House. How should allegations of rape or sexual assault against staff, against a Member of Parliament, against others in the building, how should they be dealt with, in your view?
 

ALBANESE: Well, changing culture starts with accountability. And in Brittany Higgins' case, we have a circumstance whereby we know that three ministers at least, three Cabinet ministers, at least four members of the Prime Minister's own staff, the AFP had of course informed ministers in the Government of their investigations, we had journalists, including news.com.au and The Project making inquiries to the Prime Minister's office, and it is beyond belief, frankly, that the Prime Minister knew nothing about this until it was revealed on Monday, and only after getting advice, could respond on Tuesday morning. I find that quite extraordinary and not believable. So the first thing is, we need accountability. Secondly, we need real change. We need to deal with the immediate circumstances. But real change means changes to the legislation, the Ministerial and Parliamentary Staff Act. We need to make sure there are proper processes for reporting, including the capacity to report issues independently at arm's length from the people who are responsible for managing offices. We need to make sure that support services are available. We need to make sure that training occurs of people who are in positions of authority. There needs to be a comprehensive change. The independent review needs to have very wide terms of reference to make sure that can occur.
 

SPEERS: Just to be clear, picking up on something you said there, you do support an independent body to deal with complaints?
 

ALBANESE: Absolutely. I think that's a very clear pre-condition that is required here. The idea, for example, the absurdity of Phil Gaetjens, the Prime Minister's former Chief of Staff, doing an investigation into what the Prime Minister's office knew internally and then making a Cabinet-in-Confidence document so that no-one will ever know, a bit like Sports Rorts, with the same person being in charge of the review, is quite absurd. I asked the Prime Minister this week, ‘Why don't you just ask your staff and then tell the Parliament?’
 

SPEERS: The Gaetjens review is looking into who knew what and when in the Prime Minister’s office. Just back on the point about dealing with complaints in the workplace at Parliament House, be they complaints of sexual harassment, sexual assault or something worse, if there is an independent body, should they be able to decide whether a staff member should go or not? Should that power be taken from the Member of Parliament?
 

ALBANESE: We're not doing the inquiry here, David.
 

SPEERS: This is an important point about whether an independent body can do this.
 

ALBANESE: That's exactly my point, David. We are not dog the inquiry here. This is too important, and we need to get it right. The terms of reference need to be broad, just as the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority has made a difference to the way it operates, the Parliamentary Budget Office has made a difference. It is one of the reasons why we need a national integrity commission that has real power and independence from the parliamentary masters and one of the reasons why, I'm not surprised given Sports Rorts and all the other misuse of taxpayers' funds and processes, why the Government continues to resist it in spite of the fact it says it supported one way back in 2018.
 

SPEERS: Your Shadow Minister, Clare O'Neil, says solving this problem is going to take more than a new complaints mechanism. She says she has not heard a single instance of serious self-reflection from the nation's leaders about what they have done to create this culture. As she writes, this is, ‘A culture that they as men preside over. They dominate almost all the critical positions of power and senior staffing roles. They strut the hallways, loll on couches, talk loudly and laugh raucously’. Does Clare O'Neil have a point?
 

ALBANESE: Of course Clare has a point that patriarchy exists and exists throughout all structures of society. That is why we need real structural reform and power change in our structures. It is not just a matter of saying that we need to respect each other. That's needed. Can I say, this, David? Half of my Shadow Cabinet are women That makes a difference. Labor is moving towards 50 per cent representation. We are on 47. If we had done better at the last election, we would have got there. We have very strong women in senior roles, Penny Wong, Kristina Keneally and Katy Gallagher and Tanya Plibersek and Clare herself. The idea that they're not playing a role in changing the culture is, I don't think, correct.
 

SPEERS: What about the former Labor MP, Emma Husar, who wrote an open letter saying, ‘The Labor Party have ridden their sanctimonious high horses like it is not happening on the Labor side’. She says she was the victim of slut-shaming based on reporting of maliciously leaked detail of a Labor inquiry and then forced to resign. She says you met her in 2019 and said she de served a full public apology. Is that right?
 

ALBANESE: I regret that Emma Husar feels aggrieved, but I also regret that more than a dozen of her former staff in the one term in which she served in Parliament also feel aggrieved.
 

SPEERS: Did you tell her she deserved an apology?
 

ALBANESE: David, I had a private conversation with Emma Husar after I became the Leader. She asked to see me. There was an independent inquiry conducted by the New South Wales branch that found a range of issues with the management of her office.
 

SPEERS: Did you tell her she deserved an apology?
 

ALBANESE: I am sympathetic towards Emma Husar who has had a very difficult period
 

SPEERS: But you didn't tell her she deserved an apology?
 

ALBANESE: She found that one term in Parliament very difficult. And there are a range of people, including more than a dozen staff and complaints that were dealt with at that time.
 

SPEERS: But you didn't tell her she deserved an apology?
 

ALBANESE: David, we had a private discussion. Private discussions stay private.
 

SPEERS: Let's turn to another big issue of the week, the JobSeeker rate. You've long argued that the unemployed deserve more than $40 a day. Do you think $43.60 is enough?
 

ALBANESE: Well, quite clearly, David, we did argue for an increase and it is good that there is an increase. But this is very small. We won't be in a position to stand in the way of that, we are not going to block any increase. What we say also is that it's not just about payments, it's also about issues such as support for housing. And one of the reasons why we were very concerned is that in the Budget Reply, I raised as one of our policies, that we should be putting more money into public and social housing, that would make a difference as well. I know it made a different in my life and it is regrettable with trillion dollars of debt being run up by this Government, there is not a single extra dollar that has gone in that direction as well.
 

SPEERS: Just back on the JobSeeker rate, Labor backed a Greens motion on Wednesday calling on the Government to raise the rate to at least the poverty line. Is that where you think the rate should be?
 

ALBANESE: Well, of course we think that it is really tough to do it on $40 a day. And it will still be tough to do it on $43 a day. We would like to see a greater increase. But we're not in a position to do that. We will be in a position to either block the increase, which will mean that the dollars stay where they are now. So I know that I've been contacted by some saying, ‘Block this increase’. Quite frankly, I grew up in a household with a single mum on an invalid pension. There was just the two of us. I know the difference that every single dollar would make to people. And I'm not about to block an increase. I also note, David, that governments make budgets on an annual basis. And every single budget in a Government that I lead would look at issues of poverty, would look at issues of how we can provide appropriate assistance.
 

SPEERS: This is a simple question, though, should the unemployed be at least the poverty line?
 

ALBANESE: Everyone should be above the poverty line, David. But it is a matter of the specific circumstances you can do that.
 

SPEERS: But if you use the OECD's calculation, that works out to be $65 a day in Australia. Is that right?
 

ALBANESE: It is disingenuous, David, to play games and to try to say therefore that we are in a position to do that from Opposition. We're not. We will be voting. We will be certainly not blocking any increase. And we will be making our decisions about what levels that payments should be on, whether it be pensions or unemployment benefits or other payments, on an annual basis. That's what we will do, each and every year, under a Government that I lead.
 

SPEERS: Anthony Albanese, we will have to leave it there. Thanks for joining us today.
 

ALBANESE: Thanks, David.
 
ENDS