MTR1377 Melbourne, Gambling Reform

Transcript— Monday, 23 January 2012 — MTR1377 Melbourne Steve Price Breakfast Show

E&OE

Steve Price

Kevin Andrews, good morning.

Kevin Andrews

Good morning Steve. Good morning Andrew.

Steve Price

Kevin, nice to have you on board. But listen, the government’s now spending $87 million, its tipped, on a poker machine reform trial, this mandatory pre-commitment stuff, up in Canberra. The results won’t be known, I assume, until after the election when, if you look at the polls, you lot will be in power. If this trial proves successful will you back it?

Kevin Andrews

Well, we’ve said so far, Andrew, that we’ll look at the evidence but secondly that the evidence, so far, indicates that mandatory pre-commitment won’t work. Therefore our inclination has been to say “No, we don’t support it”.

Steve Price

So whatever the trial comes up with you won’t support it?

Kevin Andrews

That’s our view at the moment, that we won’t support it. We think that there better and more effective ways of dealing with problem gambling.

Steve Price

So that’s $87 million down the drain?

Kevin Andrews

Well, that’s part of this whole mess that the government’s got itself into. This was a deal done for political reasons, not based on any sound ascertainment of what the policy was, just a deal done virtually overnight between Andrew Wilkie and Julia Gillard that she’s now torn up and trying to save face by saying we’ll have a trial. The other thing about the trial is, as I understand it, the Clubs Association have said that there are some conditions about a trial and that they haven’t been met, but I don’t know the full detail about that.

Steve Price

Well, I spoke to Clubs ACT this morning. Their boss was in Hong Kong, we spoke to him on the program, Jeff House, and I don’t know that this trial will ever happen. One, all the clubs have got to agree to it and he said they haven’t. Two, one of the commitments in this deal, one of the riders is that Queanbeyan, which is in New South Wales, clubs there have to also agree to mandatory pre-commitment to stop people driving down the road. They’re not going to do that.

Kevin Andrews

Well, it’s likely like the rest of this whole sorry saga, that the whole thing is going to unravel Steve. If they couldn’t go and honour the commitments they made in the first place, and now have hastily put together some sort of face-saving compromise, it’s likely that this is going to unravel just like the deal did in the first place.

Steve Price

Kevin, tell me whether I’ve got this wrong, but I can’t understand what difference there’s been to Andrew Wilkie’s position on supporting the government. He said they had to give him this mandatory pre-commitment of all poker machines, implement it in legislation by May, or he’d withdraw his support. But I don’t see how his support has changed. Before this all collapsed he said he’d support the government unless there was some terrible sort of malfeasance in government, and now he says he’ll still support the government unless there’s some sort of malfeasance. Now, I think that’s an empty threat, isn’t it, that he’s been holding over the government?

Kevin Andrews

Well, this has been a test of credibility all through. It was a test of credibility for Julia Gillard, whether she would honour the agreement; she’s ripped that up, and a test of credibility for Andrew Wilkie as to what this agreement actually meant in the first place. So, all we can do is see what plays out in the course of the coming year; whether or not Andrew Wilkie’s position has changed. I suspect at some stage there’ll be an opportunity for his position to be tested and that will be the determining time for him.

Steve Price

The Speaker deal now becomes even more relevant. We saw, of course, Harry Jenkins step aside in one version, or be stepped aside depending on who you listen to. Peter Slipper deserted you and decided to take up the spot as speaker. Do you think that deal with Peter Slipper will hold, and we’ve had investigations into the background of Peter Slipper’s expenses, do you expect there to be more scrutiny of those deals that Peter Slipper might have been involved in?

Kevin Andrews

Well, can I say two things? One is that we are not actively pursuing Peter Slipper, he’s Speaker and we respect the position of the Speaker. But there’s been a whole lot of allegations, as you say, floating around, and it wouldn’t surprise me that people in the media continue to pursue some of those allegations.

Steve Price

Kevin, Peter Slipper said, and he ratted on you, he was a Coalition member, by taking up the Speaker’s job he not only pumped up his income but gave the government one extra vote, which turns out to be crucial if Andrew Wilkie really does pull the pin. What Peter Slipper said was, he would never take on the Speaker’s position if he thought that by doing so he would help the government to stay in Office. He said that twice. Do you think now it’s a matter of honour for him to quit, because that’s exactly the position he’s now in? By holding the Speaker’s position he is guaranteeing the government’s continuing in Office.

Kevin Andrews

Well, I think that the test of that would come if there was a no confidence vote in the Parliament Andrew. If there was a tied vote then the question of what Peter meant by those comments would be obviously be in clear perspective so it’s a matter for him, I suspect, at that stage.

Steve Price

Good to catch up Kevin, thanks.

Kevin Andrews

Pleasure.

[ends]