LYNDAL CURTIS:
Hello and welcome to Capital Hill, where the day has again been dominated by allegations made by a teenage Defence cadet that she was filmed and broadcasted on Skype having sex with another cadet. The subsequent actions of the Federal Police and the Defence department have been under scrutiny today. The investigation is continuing, the Minister's response has been criticised by the Defence Force Association. In the background, unemployment has gone down. Out of the public eye, the poker machine reforms are continuing to be discussed and also the Government has come up with draft legislation for its plan to introduce plain packaging for cigarettes. Joining me to discuss these issues is Labor MP David Bradbury and Liberal MP Steve Ciobo. Welcome to the program.
DAVID BRADBURY:
Good afternoon Lyndal.
STEVE CIOBO:
G'day.
LYNDAL CURTIS:
David the police investigation into the Defence cadet's allegation is continuing, but the Defence Minister himself is continuing to criticise how Defence itself handled that matter, he himself has been criticised. Is the Minister right not to express his full confidence in the head of the Defence Force Academy? And also to flag possible improvements in the Defence justice system and maybe look at wether there are systemic problems involved?
BRADBURY:
Well look, Lyndal I think it's important to separate some of these issues. You rightly make the point that the matters that have been discussed quite publicly over the last couple of days are the subject of an ongoing criminal investigation and really, we must be really very careful about what we say in relation to those matters. But the point that you make and the question you ask goes to whether or not there are broader or systemic questions that need to be resolved. I think that Stephen Smith, the Defence Minister, has taken the appropriate course of action in suggesting that these are matters he will be working through. He has sought advice and has been acting upon the advice that he has been receiving from the Chief of the Defence Forces. But obviously he will continue to work very closely to work through these issues and to try and determine the extent to which these might be matters that have something to say more broadly about the culture within Defence.
CURTIS:
Steve Ciobo do you think there are broader questions of the culture of Defence and is the Minister right to be using language as strong as he has?
CIOBO:
Well Lyndal I'm always cautious about taking one example and spreading it across a much larger sample. I think that Australia's Defence men and women are fine, upstanding individuals. What has occurred here, you would hope, is an aberration and certainly not indicative of any systemic problem. I think though that there is a broader issue here about the way in which the Minister has responded. The Coalition is of the view that this is behaviour that ought not be tolerated and that a very strong message needs to be sent. That said, it's very clear that the Minister's reaction has caused division now, at least it's being reported that it has caused division with Defence Force chiefs, that's regrettable. You would have thought and would have hoped that a Minister who that was fully across his brief would be able to enjoy the support of Defence Force Chiefs, on something like this where clearly all sides are concerned about the behaviour that's taken place.
CURTIS:
David Bradbury, as Steve Ciobo pointed out this may not be a systemic problem, but there are problems, allegations made of this type in other institutions in the community as well. Are institutions including Defence and other ones not particularly good at handling these things well? Does there need to be a broader look at the way these things are handled?
BRADBURY:
Well I think that's a really difficult question to answer in the sense that when we talk about institutions more broadly across society, that, in my way of thinking includes such a vast array of organisations and institutions. I think we have to be very careful, and I pick up and reinforce the point that Steve has made, that there are dangers in taking a particular case and then extrapolating and suggesting that is a broader culture within a particular organisation. I think the logic extends from that proposition to saying, well equally we can't then say that to the extent that there might be problems within a particular institution and that also reflect broader problem across institutions generally. Look I think that's difficult, that's a big call to make. But I think that what we can say is that where issues arise in whatever institution or whatever organisation, that these matters should be properly investigated and where there are matters that potentially raise questions of criminality then its very clear what the appropriate course of action is, and that is to hand these matters over to the appropriate authorities to consider. And I think that those principles should be applied regardless of the institution and to the extent that they are adhered to, that we will find that people are treated in a decent and appropriate way.
CURTIS:
Steve Ciobo one of the aspects of this is the question of wether the law is keeping up with the pace of technological change. How difficult do you think that is for law makers, for legislators to grapple with?
CIOBO:
Well I think it comes down to whether you go for a principles-based legal system or you try and do it in a prescriptive way. Clearly if you adopt a principles based framework then these kinds of breaches of privacy where you have the publication for lack of a better term, on the internet or in some other form are of what appears to be on the surface a consensual act, there doesn't seem to be any issues around consent, but certainly not appearing to have consent for the publication of that. It's possible to embrace that in a legislative framework. Indeed some of the other myriad of examples that have cropped up in recent years. I think that it's always a challenge for legislators to remain current, but I think that a better way of achieving that is through principles-based legislation rather than through prescriptive legislation.
CURTIS:
David Bradbury do you agree that there are different ways that you can tackle this problem?
BRADBURY:
Look I would agree with what Steve has said in relation to approaching these matters from a principles-based approach. But clearly, when you sit down and devise the principles that underpin any legislation, there is always the possibility that events in the outside world and in particular technology can move very rapidly as we see every day. And sometimes even the most carefully thought through principles are incapable of being able to resolve a particular circumstance when new situations and technology come into play. Look I certainly think that the principles-based approach is one that is importantly but in the end there is a very good reason why we are constantly amending new laws and introducing new laws and that is because circumstances change, social attitudes change as well. And in accordance with those changes we need to respond as far as legislation is concerned.
CURTIS:
If we could move on to another proposed technological change. Independent MP Andrew Wilkie wants a change to the way people use poker machines, he wants a mandatory pre-commitment scheme. He doesn't have all the support of his fellow independents. Tony Windsor has expressed some doubt about it, although Bob Katter appears supportive. Rob Oakeshott and the WA National Tony Crook are still looking at this matter. Steve Ciobo you're on a committee looking at this as well, do you think a mandatory pre-commitment scheme can be made to work?
CIOBO:
Lyndal, having enjoyed the privilege of being on the committee and hearing the evidence I have no doubt whatsoever that this is a complete furphy. I mean what we are talking about here is a grubby deal that's been done between the Gillard Labor Government and Andrew Wilkie to deliver power to Julia Gillard. Now I know that many in the Labor party Cabinet do not support this policy, they think it is policy madness. I'm not sure what David's view is, I'd be interested to hear. He's got of course the Penrith Panthers in his own electorate with some 72,000 members and over 400 employees. What Andrew Wilkie is is an extremist when it comes to an ideological obsession with mandatory pre commitment. Unfortunately, Julia Gillard has now adopted this same position as part of her deal to win power. And they are going to effectively force a licence to have a bet across the entire Australian population. It is incredibly prescriptive, it's going to cost jobs, it's going to cost millions of dollars. And David you know that this has potentially been estimated to cost the Penrith Panthers and St Marys in excess of $10 million in compliance costs, and cost tens if not hundreds of jobs. So I think this policy ought to be defeated because it's just crazy.
CURTIS:
David Bradbury is a problem for the Labor Government if you can't find a scheme that works, because Andrew Wilkie signed up to support you on the basis of having a look at this.
BRADBURY:
Well I think that we are always optimistic about being able to find a way forward on any given issue, and this is an issue that presents its own challenges and there's no question about that. Look I think, on the one hand, I speak for the government and there are many of us within the government that personally recognise the contribution that many of our clubs make to our local communities, but equally, we are very conscious of the fact that gambling and in particular poker machine related gambling does have some very serious impacts and there are many people that -
CIOBO:
(inaudible).
BRADBURY:
Well there are many people in electorates such as mine who have constituents come and see them who have been affected and whose families have been affected by problem gambling. These are difficult issues and an appropriate balance has to be struck. Now we are committed to working through, in consultation with all of the stakeholders, and some of the clubs that Steve has mentioned, they're clubs that I have good relations with in my community and continue to talk to about these issues...
CIOBO:
So do you support mandatory commitment David?
BRADBURY:
I support the direction that we are taking in trying to resolve these matters but equally I think that the question that needs to be put to Steve and others within the Coalition is do they not believe that there are problems with problem gamblers when it comes to poker machines? Because I have to say that there hasn't been a lot of positive contribution from the Coalition when it comes to how we might be able to chart a pathway forward to mitigate against some of the costs associated with problem gambling.
CURTIS:
If I could move on to one other issue because our time is short. Steve Ciobo, Nicola Roxon has finally come out with draft legislation on the pledge to introduce plain packaging for cigarettes. Will the Coalition support that?
CIOBO:
Well we want to have a close look at the legislation Lyndal. Clearly the Coalition's position is that we support any reasonable policy measures, any reasonable legislation that is going to reduce the incidence of people smoking. If the evidence is there and if the legislation builds on that framework that demonstrates it will be effective policy, then yes we will. But if the legislative framework that is presented to the Parliament doesn't do that then we won't. So we want to have a close look at that legislation before arriving at our conclusion.
CURTIS:
David Bradbury it's almost a year since this policy was announced, why has this legislation taken so long? Is the plain packaging completely plain or will companies still be able to put their logos on packets?
BRADBURY:
We've seen some materials released including the draft legislation from the Minister today. In terms of the timing well these are complex matters and I think that there's one thing that we can all guarantee and that is that this approach, this legislation will be the subject of challenge and dispute and contest from big tobacco. In the same way that big tobacco has stood in the way of every development to try and reduce its availability to people. And there's a reason why we are committed to doing that and that is that this year there will be 15,000 Australians who will die as a result of tobacco related illnesses. In addition to that, our society is paying a cost in the order of $30 billion. Now I am not surprised, and it shouldn't come as a surprise to any of us that big tobacco will try and litigate, they will try and take this to the High Court, they will take it to any court they possibly can to try and stymie our efforts to impose this regulation.
LYNDAL CURTIS:
And that, gentlemen, is where we will have to leave it today, thankyou very much for joining us on Capital Hill.