5 May, 2011
Sky News – AM Agenda
Ashleigh Gillon and Andrew Leigh MP
27 April 2011
8:40am
E & OE
ASHLEIGH GILLON:
Welcome to AM Agenda. Joining us from the Melbourne studio is the Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate, Senator Mitch Fifield. Good morning, Mitch.
MITCH FIFIELD:
Good morning, Ashleigh.
GILLON:
And with me in the Canberra studio this morning is the Labor MP Andrew Leigh, good morning to you as well. We’re going to start with you, Andrew. We’ve read this morning in the Daily Telegraph that you’re colleague Mike Kelly – who is the Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture – has voiced his concerns about the pokies reforms that your Government is doing. He apparently has told the Telegraph he’s worried that they could kill off the Clubs. He explains that in his electorate of Eden-Monaro, clubs with only a few machines wouldn’t be able to afford the pre-commitment technology the Government wants to introduce. And he says that in one town, the only ATM in the whole town is actually inside a club, so he says it would make no sense to limit the amount people can withdraw from the ATM in that Club to $250. Are you surprised that he has broken ranks with Labor on this?
ANDREW LEIGH:
Well Ashleigh, I read the story, and I actually didn’t see much in that that seemed to differ from the discussions that are happening within the multi-Party Committee around gambling reform. Mike’s concerned about the impact on smaller venues of – whether they’re the only ATM in town – that’s certainly something we’re conscious of. And he’s looking at the issue of the cost of implementing mandatory pre-commitment, and that’s something we’re very aware of. This isn’t about hurting clubs, this is about helping problem gamblers and making sure that we have a set of reforms that bring down the scourge of problem gambling, which as we know hurts families and gamblers themselves. And the Government believes we can do that in a pretty non-intrusive way by allowing people to set a limit, as high or low as they like, and that enables people who have self-control problems to try to deal with that before they start to gamble.
GILLON:
Do you think that many Labor MPs are starting to get nervous about the impact of these reforms? No doubt, you’re all being lobbied by the industry over this pretty heavily.
LEIGH:
Certainly Ashleigh, the people I’ve spoken with share my own view which is that it’s important to deal with problem gambling. It’s important to address the impact problem gambling has, and it’s important to do that in a way which has as little impact on the clubs as possible. Frankly, if the clubs are making no money out of problem gamblers, then these reforms shouldn’t hurt them at all. If there are clubs which are living off the earnings of problem gamblers and the damage that’s doing the community, then it may well have an impact.
GILLON:
Mitch Fifield, you no doubt want to end problem gambling as much as the rest of us. But why is the Coalition opposed? Is it more to do with the political motivations behind this? Obviously you know if these reforms don’t go ahead, then there is that possibility, as Andrew Wilkie has threatened, that he might withdraw his support for Labor and we could be back at the polls. Is that more the reason behind the Coalition’s opposition to these reforms?
FIFIELD:
Not at all. The Coalition is concerned about problem gambling. We all are. But it’s important to look to do what will actually make a difference, and we’re not convinced that mandatory pre-commitment will lead to the improvement in problem gambling that the Government thinks. We’re all in favour of pre-commitment voluntary pre-commitment. It’s important when looking at these issues to do so carefully, calmly, on the basis of the evidence, not as this Government did, to take a decision when you’re simply scrambling to find the numbers to form government.
But I’ve got to say Ashleigh, if Andrew can’t see any difference between what Mike Kelly is saying and what the Government’s position is, then I really think he needs to get reading glasses, because Mike Kelly is clearly concerned about his seat. He’s worried. He’s getting blow back from clubs in his electorate, from ordinary citizens in his community not from the evil clubs lobby as some like to portray but from his constituents. And we’re very concerned that if you have this incredibly blunt and probably ineffective instrument of mandatory pre-commitment, you’re going to be seriously damaging community clubs their viability, their ability to put back into the community. And in some cases, as Mike Kelly has pointed out, the sole point for getting money from an ATM, if you’ve got a cap on the amount of money you can withdraw.
But for Mike Kelly there’s something that he needs to do if he really believes what he says. And that is, if you can’t support government policy, and you’re a member of the executive, you need to resign. If Mike Kelly is serious, he’ll step down from his position as Parliamentary Secretary.
LEIGH:
So Mitch, what’s interesting about your position is, is that you say you’re concerned about problem gambling, but the only solution you’re able to offer is something that is happening already. We already have voluntary pre-commitment. So it’s difficult to see that the Coalition is willing to do anything about problem gambling apart from mount platitudes.
GILLON:
Mitch Fifield, that’s a fair point, isn’t it? Voluntary pre-commitment it’s a bit naïve to think that problem gamblers are going to pay much attention to that, isn’t it?
FIFIELD:
Voluntary pre-commitment is part of the answer. We’re very happy to look at the work of the Productivity Commission, and very happy to look at the work of the Parliamentary Committee that’s currently looking at gaming issues. There may be some worthwhile things to come out of those two inquiries. But it’s important not to simply take action to be seen to be taking action, which is so often the case with this Government. You don’t want to take action if it’s not going to have the effect of improving the situation of problem gamblers, and you don’t want to take action such as mandatory pre-commitment if you’re going to belt community clubs who are a very important part of local communities, particularly in regional areas. Mike Kelly has indicated that that’s the case that’s the feedback that he’s getting from his community. I’m sure many Labor MPs are getting that feedback. It’s important to do the right thing. This Govenrment is simply committed to a policy of mandatory pre-commitment because that’s what they had to do to secure the vote of an Independent to form Government. That shouldn’t be the background for forming policy on these issues they should be formed on the basis of evidence.
LEIGH:
I’m a big supporter of community clubs. I held a community forum in one of my local clubs the other day. Many of them put a lot of resources back into the community.
FIFIELD:
But they don’t see you as a supporter of theirs, Andrew.
LEIGH:
But the key point here is that we don’t want community clubs which are making money off the back of problem gamblers…
GILLON:
OK, I think you’ve both made your points on that one. Let’s move on to another newspaper report today, and that’s one on the front page of The Australian today. Andrew, it quotes Peter Garrett, the Education Minister, saying that he wants to undertake root and branch reform of the school funding system. We know the review of course is underway, the final report is due at the end of the year. Do you expect that under your Government, the proposal that will be put forward will see private schools get less government funding?
LEIGH:
Well Ashleigh, certainly this is a Government which is strongly committed towards investing in education. We’re putting $65 billion into schools, nearly twice what the Howard Government put in in their last four years in office. And we’re reviewing the private schools funding formula, which frankly, contains some anomalies. Let me tell you about one of those. There’s two schools in my electorate which were formed a year apart from one another. One was formed just before the Howard Government changed the funding formula, the other was formed the year after. One is funding-maintained, the other isn’t funding-maintained. They get dramatically different levels of income, just because of the year in which they were founded.
GILLON:
So you think some private schools deserve to get less government funding than they do at the moment?
LEIGH:
Well the current system seems to contain anomalies in it which don’t seem fair.
GILLON:
So some private schools are getting too much funding?
LEIGH:
Well that’s what we’re doing here we’re asking David Gonski to look into some of these anomalies which arose when the Howard Government changed the funding formula back in 2001, recognising that we need to have a system which is sensible and fair for all Australians. And of course, if you were to make changes, there would be transitional issues. We’ve promised no school would lose a dollar of funding as a result of this review, but it’s important to take this once in a generation opportunity to look at the school funding and the anomalies which I think everyone agrees exist within it.
GILLON:
Well, they might not lose a dollar, but they might not have their funding increased in coming years. Mitch Fifield, a Howard Government review also said that the system was inequitable it said that the consistency and equity of the funding arrangements that are in place at the moment just aren’t fair. Do you believe that we do need this root and branch reform that Peter Garrett’s talking about?
FIFIELD:
We’ll take a look at the work of David Gonski, but the Coalition supports the SES funding model. We don’t want to see schools disadvantaged. We don’t want to see a return to the Latham schools hit-list. This Government can’t guarantee that schools won’t be worse off that schools won’t be receiving less funding as a result of their response to the Gonski review. Labor try, from time to time, to pretend that they actually do like the funding of private schools. But if you scratch below the surface, there is a very deep hostility in the Labor Party to the funding of private schools. And Andy I think indicated in his own electorate that he’s got a little hit list of his own in mind, in contrasting of those two schools.
Labor always want to return to a schools hit list. For Labor, it always comes back to funding issues. But we think that there’s more to do in education than funding. We also want to look at the structure in education giving school principals greater autonomy over their staffing, over their budgets. We think that that will help lead to better education outcomes. We also think that the $16 billion that was wasted on school halls could have been better invested. Andy cited that they doubled education funding compared to the Howard Government – he’s also counting that $16 billion of waste in providing school halls.
LEIGH:
Mitch, I should take you to some of the school building projects in my electorate. To the projects which allow teachers to team teach, to the projects that allow disabled students to actually go in to the same assembly as their able-bodied counterparts. These are school building programs that contributed to its educational performance.
GILLON:
OK, I know you could both argue about the BER projects for the rest of the day if we had time, but we unfortunately don’t. I need to get to another issue that is Chris Bowen’s announcement yesterday about the treatment the Government will have of those who are found to have criminal convictions if they play up in detention centres like we’ve seen at the Villawood detention centre in recent days. As a result, Chris Bowen says that anyone with a criminal conviction an asylum seeker who is a genuine refugee will go on a temporary visa. Labor has railed against temporary visas for years, saying they are unfair, ineffective and bad for people’s mental state. Why are you now back-flipping and saying that you’ll introduce them?
LEIGH:
Ashleigh I have to disagree with your characterisation of what Minister Bowen announced yesterday. Minister Bowen announced that, if you’re convicted of a crime on immigration detention, then the assumption will be that you don’t get a permanent visa. He then said that there would be certain conditions in which someone might sent back to face persecution we would not do that that’s not the Australian way. So we may in those instances look to use one of the temporary visas that continue to exist under the Migration Act, such as the Safe Haven Temporary Visa. We are not reintroducing Temporary Protection Visas…
GILLON:
Some of the asylum seekers who are genuine refugees are going to be put on temporary visas under your Government.
LEIGH:
Well, certainly what this is trying to do is to send a clear message that violence in our detention centres is unacceptable. Labor believes that that is the right approach to protect detainees, the staff who work in detention centres and the reputation of the many genuine refugees in these centres. We’re taking a humane approach to refugees, consistent with our international obligations, very different to that imposed –
GILLON:
Mitch Fifield, why aren’t we seeing the Coalition being more supportive of this return to temporary visas, at least for a portion of asylum seekers who may be found to have participated in criminal activities while they’re in detention centres? You’ve been arguing for tougher penalties for some time.
FIFIELD:
We’ll take a look at Labor’s legislation when they bring it forward. But this is a pretty weak and half-hearted response to a problem which is entirely of Labor’s creation. What Chris Bowen’s proposing isn’t going to stop the boats, it’s not going to stop the protests, it’s not going to stop the damage, and I doubt that it’s going to strike fear into the hearts of those who are currently sitting on the roof at Villawood.
This Government has completely lost control – not just of our borders, not just of our immigration intake, but they’ve also lost control of the detention facilities. There are currently about 7,000 people in detention in Australia. When the Howard Government left office, there were barely 100 people. What changed? Well, this Government abolished Temporary Protection Visas. This Government abolished offshore processing. It is a direct result of the policies of this Government that the people smuggler’s now have a good product to sell. They’ve been selling it, and the result is we have 7,000 people in detention. That’s why we’re having these riots, that’s why we’re having these fires, that’s why we’re having this damage. The solution is to reintroduce Temporary Protection Visas and to reintroduce offshore processing. Take away the product so the people smugglers can’t sell it. Until the Government does this, they’re really just words that mean nothing. This Government isn’t serious.
GILLON:
Plenty more debate that we could have on this issue again, but we are out of time. Mitch Fifield and Andrew Leigh, thank you both for joining us this morning.
ENDS