23 January, 2012
Sky News AM Agenda
David Lipson and Nick Champion MP
23 January 2012
8:35am
E & OE
Subjects: Gambling, people smugglers, the economy
DAVID LIPSON:
Joining me this morning on our political panel, Senator Mitch Fifield, the Shadow Disabilities Minister is in Melbourne. Thanks for your time Mitch. And Labor MP Nick Champion joins us from Adelaide. First to you Nick, and good morning. On pokies, was the nation-wide rollout of mandatory pre-commitment technology sound policy, do you think?
NICK CHAMPION:
It’s certainly sound policy. It’s something the Productivity Commission has recommended. But they also recommended a much longer timeframe than was envisaged in the Wilkie deal. And they also recommended a trial. So I suppose, after some consideration of the practicalities of implementing mandatory pre-commitment, we’re back where the Productivity Commission originally recommended that we be. I think that that’s probably the only pragmatic course that we can take, even though I favour strong action on poker machines. And I think that that’s all that this Parliament will accept, given that the Liberal Party are just saying no as usual, and that there are significant concerns amongst many of the independents, and indeed many of my colleagues about rushing this reform.
That said, we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that the Productivity Commission has reported many times to different governments to the Howard Government, the Rudd Government – and now to the Gillard Government is actually acting and doing something on poker machine reform. Important things like limits on ATMs in gaming room, important things like making sure all poker machines actually have the technology to undertake either voluntary or mandatory pre-commitment, and putting all those poker machines on a state-wide system. So all of those things are very important reforms and if you like, in my mind, the first step I think to really getting a handle on this problem. It’s a significant problem. My colleague Craig Thompson spent the first half of his article today talking about what a significant problem it is and why we need action on it by the federal government.
LIPSON:
Sure, but he says that anything other than a trial would have flown in the face of good policy. Does that put him at odds with the Prime Minister over the reasoning for going back on the deal with Andrew Wilkie?
CHAMPION:
I think you’re probably looking too much into the tea leaves of things. I think both things are true. I think the Productivity Commission recommended a trial. They thought it would sensible and I think the Government thinks it’s sensible. It’s also the pragmatic approach that one would take to this Parliament given that that’s all this Parliament will accept. We have to accept the practical realities of these things. Andrew Wilkie is a very good-hearted, decent legislator. His heart is in the right place, but I think his original deal did accelerate the timelines that the Productivity Commission has laid down, and that was going to present some practical difficulties as to just what the poker machines and the software systems behind them could handle.
LIPSON:
Mitch Fifield, is some reform a trial better than no reform?
MITCH FIFIELD:
Why would you believe this Government when they say that they’re going to institute a trial? They change their mind every day of the week and twice on Sundays. David, I think we’ve got to cut through the bunkum here, and look at what has changed since Julia Gillard signed her agreement with Andrew Wilkie. Has the Coalition changed its position against mandatory pre-commitment? No. Has Tony Windsor changed his position? No. Has Mr Oakeshott changed his position? No. Has Mr Wilkie changed his position? No. The only thing that has changed since the Prime Minister signed her agreement with Mr Wilkie is the fact that Mr Slipper has assumed the Speakership and that, as a result, this Government is less reliant on Mr Wilkie. That is the only that has changed. So the Prime Minister’s commitment to Mr Wilkie was purely for the purpose of forming Government. It wasn’t because she believed in action on gambling reform. And we can discount every single thing that she has said since that day. Every single time she said that she was committed to mandatory pre-commitment – we can dismiss that.
One thing is certain that I’ve learned since I’ve been in the Parliament David, and that is, you cannot pass legislation unless you actually put it to a vote. That is the necessary pre-condition for legislation to be passed. And we often, when we were in government, didn’t have the numbers. But we still put legislation that we promised to a vote. And you never know, particularly in this Parliament, what can happen, the dynamic of the Chamber, once you actually put something to a vote.
The Prime Minister has lied. She’s fibbed. We can forget Craig Thompson. We can forget his rationales. We can forget Nick Champion’s rationales. We can forget Julia Gillard’s rationales. They can’t be believed on anything.
LIPSON:
But it was, Mitch Fifield, this Government that put pokies reform to the Productivity Commission, and has now actually implemented a trial. It’s gone, as Julia Gillard said, further than any other government before has in implementing reforms. Also, the point that all new machines will have to have mandatory pre-commitment technology. What would be your response to that?
FIFIELD:
Again David, I just don’t believe her on anything. I’m sorry. I’ve lost faith in Julia Gillard. She said she wouldn’t introduce a carbon tax. She has. She said that she loved Kevin Rudd and wanted him to remain as Prime Minister well she stabbed him in the back. I will believe something when I actually see it before the Parliament, and quite frankly I’m not prepared to entertain anything she says until I actually see it in the Parliament.
LIPSON:
Nick Champion, I’ll get you to respond to that very briefly.
CHAMPION:
What Mitch responded to is not giving us policy proposals but just a character assault on the Prime Minister and a political assault on the Government. And that’s all they’ve got, they just say no and they just resort to sort of name calling and politics and that sort of thing. They don’t actually engage in policy…
FIFIELD:
Well Nick, we don’t tell bald-faced lies, which the Prime Minister has time and again.
CHAMPION:
Well Mitch, I didn’t interrupt you and your railings and rantings and I would appreciate it if you don’t interrupt me. The fact is that the Liberal Party are strong on politics and short on policy, and they’re just hoping for an election so they can sneak into office with no policies on industrial relations, no policies on problem gambling, no policies on the car industry, no policies on the economy, no policies on balancing the budget. It’s just all this negative politics, and that’s all they’ve got. And the Abbott Government is going to be a very strange combination of Fraserism and Santamariaism and little more than that.
LIPSON:
One policy that the Coalition has announced in recent days is ramping up or hardening of its stance on asylum seekers turning back the boats. Tony Abbott has said that he wants the navy to be involved in that process in turning boats back to Indonesia. This was the response form the Defence Minister Stephen Smith earlier this morning.
SMITH (file footage):
Well this shows Tony Abbott’s very much imbued with a one-line throwaway and doesn’t have the necessary judgement to become Prime Minister of the country. You don’t need to worry about what Service Chiefs might be saying now, you simply need to look at the evidence of the Chief of Navy at the last Senate Estimates. The only thing that the modern experience of attempting to turn back the boats will do will be to put the lives of asylum seekers at risk, and also to put the lives of Australia’s seamen and seawomen at risk, because you will immediately turn it into a rescue at sea operation.
LIPSON:
Mitch Fifield, are you confident that the top brass in Defence would back such a policy as proposed by Tony Abbott?
FIFIELD:
Our policy is as we had when we were in government. Temporary Protection Visas, offshore processing, and, as Stephen Smith was just discussing then, turning the boats back where it’s safe to do so. That’s what our policy was when we were in government. It was effective. The issue of safety is the very reason why we have this particular set of policies. Because we don’t want to see people put in harm’s way by people smugglers on the high seas. The best way to stop people being in harms way is to take the people smuggler’s product away the product which I might add was actually designed by the current Government when they withdrew our successful policies. We would only turn the boats back where it is safe to do so, and we would take the best professional advice of the Australian Navy, as we did when we were in government.
LIPSON:
But having a greater presence of the navy there, getting them involved, we have seen asylum seeker boats explode, we’ve seen Australian Defence personnel injured from such incidence. And we’ve also seen the sabotage of boats. Would we not see greater lives put at risk Australian lives in an attempt to put this policy in place?
FIFIELD:
We don’t want to see anyone’s lives put at risk. The best way to make sure that no one’s lives are put at risk is to put the people smugglers out of business. So we need a strong deterrent, and one element of that deterrent is to turn the boats back where it is safe to do so.
LIPSON:
Nick Champion, where do things stand with the Government? We heard before Christmas that it was urgent we heard this from both side of politics really the urgency of getting a policy in place. But the negotiations between Chris Bowen and Scott Morrison don’t really seem to be going on anymore. What’ the Government’s plan this year to deal with this issue?
CHAMPION:
Well I’m not sure about the Government’s discussions with the opposition and what progress has been made. We have a plan that is the Malaysian transfer agreement and we want to implement it. We want the Parliament to legislate to allow us to implement it.
LIPSON:
But how will you do that?
CHAMPION:
That’s a question for the future we don’t actually know if we don’t have the numbers yet or not given that there are some discussions going on. But What Tony Abbott said was that he was going to stop all boats. He didn’t say anything about where it’s safe to do so …
FIFIELD:
No. That’s not true, Nick. That is not true.
CHAMPION:
Mitch, it was on the front cover of the Australian. He said he was going to stop all the boats. And it’s either a bit of macho posturing, or it’s a very dangerous policy. And if he wants to stop all the boats, then the question is, is he going to order the navy and the air-force to fire on these boats? That seems to be the natural implication…
FIFIELD:
Don’t be ridiculous, Nick.
CHAMPION:
And what effect does that have, what effect does that have with the International Criminal Court, with our international reputation, with our relationship with Indonesia? Either it’s macho posturing, or it’s a very dangerous policy indeed and it has to be clarified.
LIPSON:
Where was any indication that he would fire on the boats?
CHAMPION:
There isn’t any indication of that, but it was emblazoned across the front page of The Australian, that he was going to stop all the boats. I’m just simply asking how is he going to do so. And Mitch has been back-pedalling from that front page.
LIPSON:
Mitch Fifield?
FIFIELD:
David, the Prime Minster is going to be cleaning up and mopping up after Nick today for suggesting that any Australian government would consider firing on boats that have innocent civilian people. Nick, that is an appalling thing to suggest, and I think your colleagues are going to be mopping up after you today.
CHAMPION:
I’m just asking questions about what your policy is. How are you going to stop all the boats? You said you were going to stop all the boats.
FIFIELD:
Nick, you accused us before of having no policies. You’re now accusing us of having too much policy. We have had a consistent policy for ten years. Temporary protection visas, turn back the boats where it’s safe to do so, and offshore processing. It used to be that offshore processing was immoral, apparently when Labor were in opposition. Fortunately, Labor have now at least recognised the principle of offshore processing is a good thing. But they’re pursuing half-baked proposals. They should implement our policies.
CHAMPION:
If that’s the case, why don’t you negotiate?
FIFIELD:
We did negotiate, and we will support your legislation if you make one very simple amendment, and that is that offshore processing only takes place in countries who have signed the UN refugee convention. Do that, and we’ll vote for your legislation.
CHAMPION:
That’s an amendment you never supported in Government.
LIPSON:
OK, we’re going to have to wrap up this issue. After the break we’re going to talk about the economy. Stay with us.
BREAK
Senator Mitch Fifield and Nick Champion are still with us on AM Agenda. Mitch Fifield, first to you. Chris Richardson there was talking about the possibility of another downturn, and he said that a surplus should be eaten into and perhaps go into deficit if there was another GFC. What should the Government do in the case of another downturn like we saw in 2008? Go back on its surplus promise, or stick to that promise?
FIFIELD:
David, there is no surplus to eat into. This Government hasn’t delivered a single budget surplus since they’ve been in office. And I don’t think that they will achieve their forecast surplus in the next financial year. And in fact, I think Chris is probably being very charitable to the current Government even entertaining the theoretical possibility of a surplus in the next financial year. So regardless of what happens in Europe, there won’t be a budget surplus next financial year.
My concern is, if the worst does happen in Europe, this Government has a track record of making bad situations worse. Yes, there is on occasion an argument for some fiscal stimulus. This Government went completely overboard last time, they didn’t leave enough room for monetary policy to do more of the heavy lifting. So if we do have a bad situation in Europe, which I hope we don’t, but if we do then I would hope that this Government had learnt the lessons of the past, and that they don’t throw good money after bad on things like school halls, pink batts, roof insulation and other disastrous projects.
LIPSON:
Nick Champion, the Government is standing by its surplus pledge, or at least aim or commitment, but would there be any argument at all for going back into deficit? Or is this just crystal ball gazing at the moment?
CHAMPION:
It is crystal ball gazing. We’re, I suppose, trying to second guess what happens in Europe, and it is very serious the situation that Europe faces and indeed the world economy faces. So we’re just going to have to wait and see what happens. But if everything goes to plan in Europe, if things operate as per normal and there is no crisis, then one would expect us to continue as we projected. But there is quite a bit of room in monetary policy to be able to weather any storm and I think if you look at the record of the Government, we weathered the global financial crisis very well, we have an unemployment rate with a five in front of it rather than the sort of double digit rates that are present in some of the European companies, and the very high unemployment that’s present in the US and the UK. We have low inflation and we have a strong jobs growth 700,000 jobs created since this Government was formed. So I think Australians should have every reason to be confident in the future, and we watch the rest of the world with some concern.
LIPSON:
Nick Champion and Mitch Fifield, thank you both very much for your insights this morning.
ENDS