5 May, 2011
Sky News – AM Agenda
Kieran Gilbert and the Hon Richard Marles MP
11 April 2011
8:45am
E & OE
Subjects: ADFA cadets, gaming, carbon tax
KIERAN GILBERT:
Welcome to AM Agenda. With me is the Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs Richard Marles in the Canberra Studio. And from Melbourne we have Liberal frontbencher Senator Mitch Fifield. First to you, Richard. The Defence Minister has called for disciplinary action in the wake of the ADFA scandal last week. The way it had been responded to was a significant error, the Minister said. Apparently this disciplinary action hasn’t been forthcoming, and there’s a stand off between the military hierarchy and Minister Smith. Should the defence chiefs get on with it?
RICHARD MARLES:
The Minister is meeting with the Chief of the Defence Force, as I understand it, this morning. I think this matter has been handled appropriately and I’m not going to get in to the nature of the conversation that the two of them will have. What’s important here is that the community expects that the defence force treats women and female recruits in an appropriate and respectful manner. I think people would expect the Defence Minister to be making that point clear, and I think he has. And the other issue of course is to make sure that the way in which this case is now pursued is one which is done in a dignified way, which meets community expectations.
GILBERT:
And obviously the Minister wants something done soon, to show that the military is serious about this?
MARLES:
Well I think what’s important is that a statement is made that women need to be treated properly and respectfully within the military. I think the Defence Minister has done a superb job in making that position clear and in a sense representing the expectations of the community. He’ll pursue this with the Chief of the Defence Force this morning and we’ll see the matter pursued from here.
GILBERT:
Is there a stand-off though? Is Stephen Smith twisting the arm of the military chiefs to do something?
MARLES:
What is clear here is that the Minister and the Chief of the Defence Force are working very closely together to deal with what is a very sensitive issue. But what’s important is that the way in which it’s dealt with is one which meets community expectations around –
GILBERT:
The Minister wants disciplinary action, doesn’t he?
MARLES:
Well they’ll be meeting this morning to further discuss this and see how this issue can be sorted out. What matters is that the way in which it’s sorted out is a way which treats women respectfully or meets community expectations around the treatment of women.
GILBERT:
Senator Fifield, Stephen Smith isn’t the first Defence Minister to face these challenges with the military hierarchy in terms of responding to scandals like this.
MITCH FIFIELD:
That’s certainly true, but Stephen Smith is the Minister today, and he is in charge of addressing this situation with the ADFA cadet. There’s no doubt that the ADF have not handled this incident at all well. Stephen Smith’s instincts, I think, have been correct. His primary concern has been for the cadet concerned. He has expressed righteous indignation as is appropriate. But what remains to be seen is if Stephen Smith actually follows through. It’s important that there is accountability for what has happened at the Defence Force Academy. Ultimately, if there’s a contest of wills between the ADF and the civilian power in how this matter is to be addressed, the civilian power must prevail. That’s the system we have in place. So the Minister has expressed the right concerns, he’s been asking the right questions, but what we need to see now is for the Minister to follow through to make sure that there is accountability. We need to make sure that the cadet gets the support she needs, and also to make sure that any systemic problems in training are thoroughly addressed.
GILBERT:
On another issue – on the pubs and clubs launching their campaign today- another multi-million dollar campaign against a government initiative. Andrew Wilkie’s initiative, and the Government is backing it, is for pre-commitment technology. Are you worried that this campaign will rattle – if not the government – some of the crossbenchers who you need to help in the passage of this?
MARLES:
Well it’s certainly not going to rattle the Government, and I don’t think it’s going to rattle the crossbenchers. But from a Government point of view, it’s certainly not going to rattle us. What’s important here is that while obviously respecting the really important role that clubs play within our society, we need to be putting in place measures which deal with problem gambling. And it is an issue, if any organisation is out there with a business model which is based on profiting at the expense of people’s misery. Now all we’re doing is giving problem gamblers the tools they need to better manage their money and better manage the way in which they interact with poker machines. No one is saying that recreational gambling is a problem here, but where we have problem gambling, we need to be putting in place measures. And I think the clubs need to be really careful here because they do not want to find themselves in a position where they are standing in the way of putting in place really important measures which help problem gamblers deal with their issues and which help alleviate misery within our society.
GILBERT:
Senator Fifield, there are 100,000 problem gamblers nationwide. Isn’t this an issue? Isn’t this sort of help required?
FIFIELD:
We’re very concerned about problem gambling – we were in Government and we remain so today. We want to study very carefully the Productivity Commission Report and also the work of the Parliamentary Inquiry that’s currently underway. But in defence of the clubs they have a right to put their view. I noticed a bit of a veiled threat there on the part of Richard, saying the clubs had better be careful. But the clubs have as much right to put their view as the ACTU did to put their view on industrial relations before the last couple of elections. We want to look at this very soberly – you want to look at these issues very carefully. Not as this Government has done, which is basically making a commitment purely on the basis of trying to stay in office, to secure a vote.
GILBERT:
You are open to this idea though?
FIFIELD:
We’re prepared to look at the work of the PC and the Parliamentary Inquiry. What we’re very much in favour of is voluntary pre-commitment – we’ve made that clear. The issue of mandatory pre-commitment there are a number of issues in that which have to be closely examined. For example, whether the technology can actually be applied across jurisdictions and across different networks of machines, and the effect that there’ll be on the clubs themselves. These clubs make a very important contribution in their local community so we need to study this carefully.
GILBERT:
Just one last issue, we’ve got two minutes remaining on the program. Don Voelte, the Woodside chief, says putting a price on carbon before the rest of the world could hurt our chances of attracting foreign investment. Is this the industry sensing that the Government is vulnerable at the moment, in minority government, and seeking to capitalise on it?
MARLES:
Well firstly, we’re not putting a price on carbon before the rest of the world there are 32 other countries out there which have already put a price on carbon. We’ve got to take this step to ensure that we keep up with the rest of the world. But this is an important debate to have. The details around industry assistance still haven’t been worked through. The comments that he’s made come in the context of the business roundtable –
GILBERT:
Is industry trying it on though? Are they trying to get more compensation than last time?
MARLES:
I think you’ve got to expect people to be making arguments robustly at this point in the cycle, and that’s absolutely fair enough. But what we’ve got to make sure that we do is to put a price on carbon so we’re not left behind from the rest of the world, and we’ve got to do it in a way which is sensible to jobs as the Prime Minister has made clear we will do.
GILBERT:
OK just with a minute remaining, Senator Fifield, is this just part of the normal robust debate?
FIFIELD:
No the industry has made it clear that there’s $130 billion of investment in projects which may be cancelled or deferred because the Government wants to put this massive impost on them. Under a Coalition Government, there would be 100 per cent compensation because there would not be this tax. What the industry is making clear here is that it is sheer madness to embark upon a carbon tax when the rest of the world isn’t doing that. Why would we penalise our own industries, our own businesses, our own exports, our own consumers for no good reason?
MARLES:
Because the rest of the world is doing it.
FIFIELD:
Actually, the rest of the world isn’t doing it. The US isn’t going to introduce an ETS down the track, nor is China.
GILBERT:
Unfortunately we’ve got to leave it there gentlemen. Thank you for your contribution this morning, Richard Marles and Senator Fifield. That’s all for this edition of AM Agenda.
ENDS