HOST: Prime Minister, good morning, happy New Year.
PM: Good morning Fran and happy New Year to you too and welcome back.
HOST: Welcome to the year of the dragon. Prime Minister, you've torn up a written deal with Andrew Wilkie to introduce compulsory precommitment limits on poker machines. You welched on a deal?
PM: Well Fran, let's be very clear what's happened here - what has happened is it became apparent that there wasn't the support in the House of Representatives to deliver Andrew Wilkie's plan, to deliver his plan for full mandatory precommitment. So I have worked to make sure that we get far reaching poker machine reforms through the Parliament. Indeed it will be the first time ever that the national government has taken any steps in a major way to deal with problem gambling, any steps to legislate to address the real pressures that problem gambling puts on the shoulders of Australian families.
And so we've announced a comprehensive package of change, machines will be changing so that they will have precommitment technology on them, we will have a full trial of mandatory precommitment to see whether it can work to help problem gamblers. We will also be limiting the amount of cash people can get out of ATM machines in gaming venues, so they can't just keep going back and back and back for more and more and more and more and we'll also be ensuring machines have warnings on them and we'll be putting extra support behind counselling.
HOST: But Prime Minister, the fact is you signed a deal with Andrew Willkie, you promised to introduce this legislation into the Parliament by May and introduce the policy into operation by 2014, now you're not doing that. Why should anyone trust you, how can voters believe what you say?
PM: Fran, government's about getting things done and the circumstance here is legislation for full mandatory precommitment would fail in the Parliament. Now that would-
HOST: -But you never even put it to a vote. Why not test it on the floor of the Parliament and argue your case? I think voters find it hard to understand how you can make that assessment without even giving it a go.
PM: Well Fran, you are aware, as I am, of the statements made by the independents and crossbenchers on this matter and it is apparent that legislation would fail. In those circumstances we've got a choice - do you go to the Parliament and have something fail, get absolutely nothing done, make no difference to problem gambling, no difference to the usage of poker machines in Australia-
HOST: -Put the case to the Australian people, make it clear the strength of the Government's commitment on this. I mean it's not impossible, admittedly-
PM: Well, no one should doubt, Fran, the strength of the Government's commitment on this. We will make sure that there is the biggest package of change ever delivered by a national government on problem gambling in this nation's history. So no one should doubt the Government's commitment, but government is about getting things done, Fran. It's about acting, it's about delivering change and we will deliver change, rather than go to the Parliament, get a piece of legislation voted down and not one problem gambler in one gaming venue in Australia experiences any change in their lives as a result.
HOST: It just seems though, like perhaps the Government's prepared to forfeit without actually giving it a go. This is an unusual Parliament, everyone understands that, minority government is not easy, it's not impossible though, is it that unusual results could come in a Parliament like this, if a government argues convincingly on the floor of the parliament you might be able to persuade someone from the other side to your cause.
PM: Fran, I have worked on this patiently, alongside Jenny Macklin, I have had direct discussions with the crossbenches, they have said the same things to be privately that they have said publicly. Your question is basically premised on the assumption that we haven't sought hard testing of people's views. Well we have had discussions in private, we have seen the statements made by the independents in public and it is apparent that there is not the support in the House of Representatives for Andrew Wilkie's plan.
Now in those circumstances you can say ‘Well, let's get nothing done, let's just take a piece of legislation, watch it go down, nothing changes for problem gambling, nothing changes for Australian families that really have the mortgage and the rent and the food for the kids put down poker machines.' Or you can take the approach I'm taking, which is government is about delivering, it's about getting things done and we will deliver the most far reaching set of changes on problem gambling ever delivered by a national government.
HOST: You see that's your problem, isn't it? You say government's about delivering, but you have a perception problem here, because you've already been branded with a broken promise on the carbon tax, here's another broken promise. Doesn't this just entrench the public perception that you can't be trusted, that you don't deliver on what you promise?
PM: I think the Australian people look to government's to deliver, they want to see practical changes in their lives, they want to know when they go to the local hospital that it's improving and it's got more funds and more doctors. They want to know when the children go to school that they school is improving and there's a real focus on teacher quality and literacy and numeracy. They want to know across the board that the government is doing the right thing to keep people in work, to manage the economy in the interests of working people and on the issue of problem gambling I think Australians are concerned-
HOST: -They are concerned, we know that, 60 per cent of Australians support action on gambling reform.
PM: Exactly Fran. I'm agreeing with you. Most Australians are concerned, many Australians would personally know someone in their family, in their workplace, through a club that they're involved in, through a church or a trade union they're involved in, would know someone who's struggled with pokies addiction. And what Australians will see as a result of the Government's legislation is change and I'm very aware of the problems that families face when addiction to poker machines take over. I've seen it in my own electorate in Melbourne's west, where people do start off the day with good intentions, they're not going to do gaming at all, and then they find themselves in a gaming venue, then they're only going to limit their losses and by the time they walk away from the machines they've done all of their dough.
Well the approach we're taking will mean that there's precommitment technology on the machines, people will be able to take a decision to limit their losses, we will be trialling full mandatory precommitment, they won't be able to go and get endless supplies of cash out of the ATM machine and there will be more counsellors available to support people who have a problem and whose family is saying to them ‘please get some help.'
HOST: With respect, Prime Minister, the approach you're taking is a trial on precommitment technology, which you've said previously and consistently you're absolutely committed to, that doesn't start until next year. Why wait 13 months to begin a trial, where's the force of the commitment there?
PM: Well Fran, we've got to deal with the practical realities of the world in which we live. First and foremost, Andrew Wilkie has also supported a trial in the past-
HOST: I'm not arguing against a trial, I'm arguing why can't you have a trial now?
PM: And I'll answer your question Fran, but let's make sure we get all of the facts on the table - Andrew Wilkie has supported a trial, under Andrew Wilkie's plan, if it was implemented, the change to full mandatory precommitment would happen after the next election in any event.
On the time of the trial we will be trialling in the ACT, every machine needs to be changed, every machine needs to be in the right place for precommitment technology, some of them would probably have it now, but every machine that doesn't have it needs it put on, then the software to interlink all of the machines needs to be brought into force. We've taken very careful advice on how long that would take and it will take ‘til next year, that's just the practical reality.
HOST: Well, it seems though that it's pretty convenient timing for a government that was being absolutely hammered by this issue in many of its marginal seats, because this trial won't even be evaluated until June 2014, that's the trial, well after the next election. If a Coalition government's in place by then, well as Tim Costello says, this precommitment hangs on a wing and a prayer, doesn't it?
PM: Well, number one Fran, we can't wish away the facts and the facts are we have been advised that it is not possible to start this trial earlier than 2013 due to the large amount of set up work that needs to be done. Now you can pretend that that's not a reality, that's not a fact. I'm Prime Minister of the country, I deal in facts - that's the facts.
Number two, in terms of the role of the next Parliament, even under Andrew Wilkie's plan full mandatory precommitment would have come into effect in the next Parliament.
HOST: Yes, but it would have been legislated in this Parliament.
PM: And Fran, you know parliaments can make and unmake legislation and so the move to full mandatory precommitment would have been in the next Parliament in any event.
HOST: Prime Minister, talking about this trial, as I understand it the clubs involved will get $36 million of taxpayer's money to offset, amongst other things, offset losses that might arise from the trials. So, if I'm right, you're giving money to the clubs who make millions and millions and millions of dollars out of pokies and people's losses, to do this? A lot of people are very unhappy about that thought.
PM: Well Fran, once again, real world, let's have a look at the facts - we need the cooperation of the clubs in order to have the trial.
HOST: But do you really need to offset them for the losses, I mean fair enough-
PM: -Fran, real world, we need the cooperation of the clubs to have the trial. If you were a club owner you would be saying to government ‘Well, I'm prepared to help with the trial, but what about the costs, what about my losses, what circumstance am I going to be in?' So we've got to make an arrangement with them which means we've got their cooperation for the trial.
To go down the path you're suggesting where you don't give them full compensation would equal having no trial.
HOST: Labor backbencher Craig Thomson has written today this is a big win for the Labor Caucus. In reality isn't the big winner here the clubs and pubs of Australia, big business who spent millions of dollars lobbying against this?
PM: Well I believe the winners here, if you like, are people who want to see real change on problem gambling. There is community concern and we could have all sorts of political argy-bargy and end up with nothing, or we could get a piece of legislation though the parliament that will deliver real change. I've adopted a course which will see us deliver real change.
HOST: Talking of real change, the Greens have a proposal they want to bring in which is $1 bet limits. The Productivity Commission also recommended $1 bet limits and says it's something that should be part of the mix of reform. Why don't you support $1 bets?
PM: The Productivity Commission's foremost recommendation was about precommitment technology-
HOST: -But not the only recommendation.
PM: Let's be very clear about what the Productivity Commission recommended. Second, we are open during the course of this trial to the trialling of low intensity machines, but we also have very clear advice that in terms of the costs of changing machines over, that seeking to have $1 bet limits is the most costly way of bringing about change.
HOST: So it's all about the costs, that's your only concern about the $1 bets?
PM: Well, when you say, Fran, all about the costs, costs actually matter. We have very-
HOST: -Oh, sure. I'm not saying you don't-
PM: -We have very clear advice that that is the most costly path of change. The predominant recommendation of the Productivity Commission was about precommitment technology, so we are pursuing that advice from the Productivity Commission on precommitment technology. We are open to also trialling low intensity machines.
HOST: Prime Minister, you've had a lot of meetings with Andrew Wilkie lately. Andrew Wilkie is now withdrawn his support for your government overall. He's now talking about warmer relations with the Coalition and rethinking his support for government on a number of issues, for instance the means testing of the private health insurance rebate. In your talks with him did he make any specific threats there?
PM: Look, I'm not going to go into my discussions with Andrew Wilkie. The outcome of those discussions is clear. What I put to Andrew Wilkie was that there was not the support in the Parliament for the package of changes that he wanted, that his was a circumstance where you could get nothing or you could get real change and that we were moving towards real change. I do note that Mr Wilkie publicly has said he will support the Government's legislation, which will make a difference for problem gambling.
On issues like the private health insurance rebate, Fran this is a simple proposition about fairness. It's whether or not you believe at the end of the day, that someone who works in a shop should be subsidising the private health insurance of a millionaire, whether someone who works as an apprentice should be helping me pay for my private health insurance.
Well I don't need that help, the millionaire doesn't need that help and that apprentice or that person working in a shop shouldn't be facing the burden of paying a third of the cost of the private health insurance of upper income workers.
Now Mr Wilkie, in the past, has been very clear that he support this legislation.
HOST: Prime Minister, on another issue, asylum seekers. Tony Abbott has said now that in government his policy would be to turn back all boats from Indonesia. Are you tempted to follow, given that your policy, which was the Malaysia solution, now appears completely sunk?
PM: Tony Abbott's policy is to put Australian lives at risk. You should see and note the wise words of senior Navy personnel who say that this is risky for Australian Navy officers, for Australian Navy crew. Mr Abbott's policy is about risking Australian lives and indeed the lives of asylum seekers.
Everybody actually knows what happens, Fran. What happens is asylum seeker boats are disabled, they are sunk, people are in the water, our Navy personnel have to go and get them, that puts everybody at risk, including the lives of young Australians. That's where Mr Abbott wants to end up.
HOST: Prime Minister, thank you very much for joining us.
PM: Thank you.