Press Conference, Melbourne – Gambling Reform, Australia Day Protests

Transcript— 11:45 am, Monday, 30 January 2012 — Press Conference, Melbourne

Play YouTube Video

E&OE

Kevin Andrews

Ladies and Gentlemen, can I make a few comments this morning about gambling. It was reported in the media on the weekend that the government received technical advice that the proposal which Mr Wilkie had put forward wasn’t feasible in that it could not be achieved by 2014. It was reported that that advice was received in April, and it was further reported that his FOI requests in relation to that advice.

Now I want to say two things about this. First, if it’s true that the government received technical advice in April concerning the feasibility of Mr Wilkie’s proposal yet continued for month after month beyond that, holding out to both Mr Wilkie and to the Australian people that there was a possibility of this deal coming to fruition then this is a further deception of both Mr Wilkie and the Australian people. The second thing I want to say is this. The government should not be hiding behind FOI provisions for the release of this advice. They should come forward; release the advice so that both Mr Wilkie and the rest of the Australian public can see what it was they were advised on technical grounds back in April, rather than hiding behind FOI provisions. They should come forward and release the advice immediately so that all of us may be aware of what was provided by way of the government. And the final thing is that this seems to me to be a continued saga of deception on the part of the government; not only in relation to this matter but in a whole range of matters now where their word simply can’t be taken on face value.

Any questions?

Question

May I ask what your position is in relation to the government’s proposed trial on mandatory precommitment?

Kevin Andrews

The question is about the trial of mandatory precommitment in the ACT. At the moment we’re going through our policy process; in fact our gambling policy taskforce which I chair for the Coalition will be meeting with a whole range of interested parties later this week, ranging from the Church’s gambling taskforce to representatives of various industry groups, and as part of that we’ll be discussing with them a whole range of issues concerning gambling, not just poker machines but obviously that will come up in the discussions, and also obviously the trial of mandatory pre-commitment. We’re doing this in a proper way; a proper policy process unlike the government, in order to arrive at solutions which we think will actually address problem gambling. But I do note, in passing, that in the announcement that the government made about their proposal, they’ve actually picked up many of the suggestions that we put out in our discussion paper, so again not only have the government not done the hard policy work, in this regard they’ve simply pinched what we’ve put forward.

Now we’re happy for them to adopt good proposals but I do think that it shows once again that the government is not engaged in the proper policy process that they should be in relation to these matters generally.

Question

Given what you’ve just said is there any (inaudible) that you can support a trial, if it’s just a trial after all?

Kevin Andrews

Well, there’s a range of issues and, as I’ve explained, that we’re going to talk to people about. We believe there’s a proper way of making policy that should involve listening to people, considering what their views are about this. I haven’t had the opportunity to sit down, as I will be over the next couple of days, this week with my colleagues, and to have those discussions and question people about various aspects of it. We’re going to be informed, we’re not simply going to make policy on the run, we put a process in place at the end of last year which has a reporting date by the end of February back to the Leader of the Opposition, we’re working on that time frame and I believe we’ll be able to meet it.

Question

Back to why you called this press conference, is it fair to be relying on media reports about the possibility that the government received technical advice back in April? Shouldn’t you be seeing whether that was the case before you actually start to criticise the government of something that you’re not even sure of?

Kevin Andrews

Well, I’m prepared to accept what’s written in the media when you quote saying spokesperson for the government saying that FOI requests have been received in relation to this matter, I’m prepared to accept that that is a genuine report, but if it’s not I would have thought that given that this was reported on the weekend, then today we would have a comment from the government disputing the facts. There’s been no disputation of the facts as they’ve been reported so I think it’s fair for any reasonable person, including the Opposition, to accept the facts that have been reported as being true. Now if they’re true then of course that raises two questions. The first question is: was this a massive deception of Mr Wilkie for month after month after month when they had technical advice that what he was proposing, and the timeframe in particular, of what he was proposing was not feasible. And then secondly, why not release the technical advice? If it’s technical advice about an issue which is of concern to many Australians then it should be released so everybody can see what it says.

Question

Have you spoken to Mr Wilkie yet?

Kevin Andrews

No, I haven’t spoken to Mr Wilkie about it. I’m simply relying, as I said, on the reports that have been in the media over the weekend.

Question

Can I ask you in relation into the Opposition’s call for a police investigation into what happened the other Friday and subsequently what’s been discovered? The AFP has been saying there’s no investigation or evidence of any criminality. Is there a need to continue to push for this investigation?

Kevin Andrews

There are many questions that remain unanswered. We have different versions now from various parties as to what happened. We have a version from the Prime Minister. We had a version, version one, from Ms Sattler, we now have version two from Ms Sattler. So there are different versions from the different players as to what happened. So, given that this is the most serious security breach involving a high ranking official, in particular the Prime Minister I think for more than probably three or four decades in Australia, I would have thought that the Australian Federal Police would want to have an investigation immediately to see whether or not this was handled properly or appropriately. We need to think about the image of this that was going not just right around Australia but indeed right around the world, of a Prime Minister being bundled by Federal Police Officers down some steps, losing her shoe, looking somewhat worried about her circumstances and being bundled away from a very noisy demonstration. This is not a very good look for Australia regardless of anybody’s political views about this.

So, the combination of what‘s been portrayed about this nation and its Prime Minister, are the fact that this is the most serious security breach that we’ve had for many, many years. Those things alone ought to be undertaken by the Australian Federal Police. As to criminality I understand that the Shadow Attorney-General, Senator Brandis, is proposing to write to the Federal Police asking that this matter be looked into, and I would trust and expect that people would respond to that in an appropriate and professional manner.

Question

On the face of it though it does look like the Prime Minister was clueless of the conduct in her office and that action was swiftly taken. Are you not satisfied with that?

Kevin Andrews

Well, as I said there are various versions of what happened, as to who told whom what. We have one version that came out immediately, and one version which seems to contradict that first version. Not all of these versions can be correct. That’s the reality. The facts of what happened are the facts of what happened, and yet there is confusion about what happened because we’ve been given different versions. Now we know that there was more than one staff member of the Prime Minister at the event, we know that various other conversation have been reported in the media, and can be heard on television footage from the time. So there’s various versions of things and there’s a lot of questions that remain unanswered and to try and just sweep this under the carpet, when in the first place this arose in part from a verballing of a quite innocent statement made by the Leader of the Opposition, a statement which somebody of such eminence said in the indigenous community in Australia as Warren Mundine, has said words to the effect that it was quite a reasonable statement.

So, somebody’s gone out and verballed Tony Abbot, and done so in a way that’s led to an incitement of people to carry on in behaviour that is totally unacceptable to ordinary Australians whether or not they’re indigenous or non-indigenous Australians. There are lots of questions to be answered and our view is that this should not be just swept under the carpet and say, oh well that happened last week and so we can move onto something this week. It demands answers.

Question

So are you suggesting Mr Hodges and Kim Sattler were involved in inciting what happened?

Kevin Andrews

I’m asking questions, like most people who look at this are asking questions, and given that there are inconsistencies in the reports that have been given, then the reality is that we have not got a settled truth about what happened, and the Australian people are entitled to have the truth of this matter, and we haven’t had the truth it would seem so far.

Question

There is some sort of talk about a possible no-confidence motion parliament this year. What’s your position on this?

Kevin Andrews

Well, I haven’t discussed this matter with my colleagues; our parliamentary tactics are matters that we discuss when in parliament and obviously we’ll discuss a whole range of things, but frankly this is a government which is lurching from one crisis to another.

Everything they touch seems to turn to mush these days, and I think we’re getting to the point where any moral authority of this Prime Minister has been largely eroded, and therefore the basis upon which this government continues to govern is really questioned by many people, and I walk around the streets whether it’s here in Melbourne or any other part of the country that I’ve been to over the last couple of weeks, couple of months or so, people are just saying they don’t trust this government. Now if we’ve gotten to a situation in Australia where there is widespread distrust with the Prime Minister and the government then that is a serious situation and the Opposition will respond to that in the appropriate way.

Question

Can we turn to your gambling policy please, is the Coalition going to be putting out its final policy before (inaudible)?

Kevin Andrews

Well our timetable we’re working on is for the taskforce to be reporting to the Opposition Leader by the end of February. That’s why we’ve had our discussion paper out, that’s why we’ve called for submissions of which we’ve received many. That’s why we’re conducting discussion with various groups this week.

So after this week, when the discussions are completed, we can then sit down and we can then decide whether there are further people we need to talk to or not, we can start to formulate our response. But the timetable we’re working towards is to report to the Leader of the Opposition by the end of February, of course there’s a policy process which we go through, and that involves the further broader policy committee, that involves the Shadow Cabinet and I presume it will involve the Coalition party room as well.

So, as I said, from the outset there is a proper policy process, and if you have a proper policy process in line and you follow it then you’re more likely to arrive at conclusions that take into account the broader views of the community and you’re less likely to make mistakes.

Thank you very much.

[ends]