Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Disclaimer: The Parliamentary Library does not warrant the accuracy of closed captions. These are derived automatically from the broadcaster's signal.
ABC News 24: The Drum -

View in ParlView

(generated from captions) Live. Hi, I'm Steve Cannane. This Program is Captioned

Coming up on 'The Drum', stand-off on asylum seekers Coming up on 'The Drum', the

finally over. The battlelines

drawn over flexible hours in

the workplace. Also why FaceBook the workplace. Also tonight, why FaceBook is spending a

billion dollars on a company

that doesn't make

that doesn't make money.

Joining me on the panel Joining me on the panel -

Annabel Crabb, Peter Lewis and

Peter Reith. But first for the Peter Reith. But first for

news with Jason Om The

stand-off between Indonesian

officials and asylum seekers at the Port of Merak is over. A

short time ago there were angry

scenes when about 40 of them

struggled with police, but now

all 1230 of them have ashore. They were all 1230 of them have gone

ashore. They were originally

bound for Christmas Island when

their boat broke down. Meantime

in Darwin, a group of Chinese

asylum seekers has found

themselves at the centre of a political storm. The New Zealand Government hopes they

don't go ahead with a plan to

sale to that country to claim

asylum seeker. The group has

been given four days to decide

whether they want to be

detained in Australia or make

the risky journey. Let's call

it compassionate politics. it compassionate politics. We are inspiring now, I think every nation, and certainly New

Zealand to be a responsible

global citizen and in a

situation like this where there

is a genuine refugee and asylum

case, I don't think they will be a threat to nobody. The be a threat to nobody. The dead

line for a ceasefire in Syria

has passed with no let-up in

the violence. The past 24 hours

has been marked by heavy

neighbouring countries. The fighting that spilled into

violence building up just

inside Syria spilled over the

border today. Refugees who

thought they had reached safety

in Turkey either fired on or

caught in crossfire. " It is

the last straw, ""says this

man." They're killing us. Just

come and see all the dead. You,

the world, just come and watch. They're slaughtering them with

knives. They're bombing the

houses. Uhr people help us."

There were at least 15

injured being treated in this

hospital and for the first time

some have been shot while on

the Turkish side. Many of the

Turkey camps like this one are Turkey camps like this one

just a short distance from the

border and many of the inmates

came in the great wave of the

past week, driven here by their

own Syrian horror stories. own Syrian horror stories. This is the Vietnam ladge of Latmana

today. They have been pulling

people out from what's left of

their homes after another

bombardment. 35 people are believed to have died here,

including women and children.

The only grim certainty in

Syria is there will be Syria is there will be many

more such victims. The family more such victims. The

of a murdered Hells Angels

sentence for his killer. Mick associate has welcomed the jail

Hawi has been jailed for at

least 21 years for the death of

Anthony Zervas at Sydney

Airport in 2009. The victim was

bashed with a bollard and

stabbed during a brawl

involving bikies. Hawi will be

eligible for parole in 2030. Football Federation

Australia says the Newcastle Jets don't have the right to return their A-League

Tinkler's Hunter Sports Group

bought the licence 18 months

ago, but it's now being handed

back 8 years before it expires.

The group has cited concerns

over the $5 million acquisition

fee. But the Federation has

warned it may take legal warned it may take

action. I'm Jason Om 6789

to 'The that's the news. Now it's back

Cannane. This Program is to 'The Drum' with Steve

Captioned Live.

Hello and welcome to 'The

Drum'. I'm Steve Cannane.

Coming up the executive of the

HSU at war with each other. The

stand-off between stand-off between Afghan asylum

seekers and Indonesian police ends. And Face books's

billion-dollar gamble on a tiny

phone app company. Our

tonight - Annabel Crabb phone app company. Our panel

ABC Online, Peter Lewis tonight - Annabel Crabb from

Essential Media and former ABC Online, Peter Lewis from

Howard Government minister

Peter Reith. And you can join

"thedrum". The stalemate in on Twitter using the hashtag

involving asylum seekers involving asylum seekers on

board a tanker in the

Indonesian Port of Merak appears

appears to be over. The 120

Afghan men came ashore after Afghan men came ashore after a

guarantee none would be sent to

detention centres. A different

story in Darwin where story in Darwin where a group

of Chinese asylum seekers are

deciding whether to stay or

sail onto New Zealand. The

Prime Minister says the Federal Government cannot intervene. We're not in a

position where we could detain

these people. They have not

asked for asylum in Australia and they are on a sea worthy

vessel. So we are not in a

position where we could detain

them against their will. While

con Delling Labor's immigration

policy in the main, Tony Abbott

did argue that mandatory

detention was the real reason

the Chinese group want to keep

boats going. If we want to stop the

boats and protect our borders

it's clear what we need to do.

We need to first of all have

rig rouse offshore processing. We have to have temporary

protection visas, we have to

have the option of turning

boats around where it's safe to

do so and we've got to have

mandatory detention. It's only

because New Zealand lacks

mandatory detention that that

boat is apparently boat is apparently headed

there. Annabel, both these stories really underline the

desperation of people fleeing

their home lands and I guess

the real struggle of countering that desperation? Yes, that desperation? Yes, although

you would have to say with the

Chinese asylum seekers they are

on a sea worthy craft, they are

in pretty good shape, they are

taking a break in Darwin taking a break in Darwin and

the destination of their then they're ploughing on to

choice. I do think that when seekers, we're looking at asylum

seekers, we look at people who

are so desperate that they are so desperate that

alight at the first place that

they can, they find safety

where they first locate it where they first locate it with themselves and their children.

In this circumstance, you've got a fairly determine ed

targeting of the exact forum in which they're most interested

in lodging their claims. And

also... But it seems they've

got no idea with what awaits

them with the seas. Local

sailors say you shouldn't be

going around that part of

northern Queensland at northern Queensland at that time of year in that kind of vessel. Well, that's the downside of the forum-shopping approach,

approach, isn't it? I guess it's something that asylum

seekers claim when they come to

Australia via Indonesia and

other countries, you know, they

leave the country at which they

- in which they are most

principally at risk, their homelands, which is the

argument, and then they come

via another country to get to

their eventual country of

choice. Peter Reith, would

things be any different if the Coalition was in power, the

argument being put by Scott Morrison and Tony Abbott is

they would stop the boats because they would go back to

the solution that worked but

the Department of the Department of Immigration

advice in the last 12 months

has been that Nauru and the

Pacific Solution worked once but it wouldn't but it wouldn't work again? Well, I don't accept what they say. They're advisers

to the Government, not advisers

to the Opposition and honestly I just don't understand how

they can be so dogmatic in that

view when the previous

government demonstrated as a

matter of practice that it did

in fact make a difference. I

mean, it's not just a question

of Nauru. I think the temporary

protection advise 15s are also

part of it. - protection visas

are also part of it. The mandatory detention is also a

deter rent. I don't accept

that. I think it can be done and I certainly think it's

worth trying to do. As I say on

my piece on 'The Drum' today, my piece on 'The Drum' today, I

think there is a very strong possibility that there will be more people trying to get more people trying to get to Australia, particularly when

Afghanistan basically goes it

alone after the Americans and

we've left and the others, I

think there is every prospect

that they will be subject to continuing persecution, if not

more, and and in that

situation, there is enough of

them who can afford to get to Indonesia through Malaysia and

take their chance. Peter Lewis,

what do you think? I've got what do you think? I've got a

fairly unfashionable view,

Steve, which is what's the big

deal? We're living in a deal? We're living in a country

that needs to find an extra 6

million people in the next six years to meet our economic

projections. It seems to me

debates over these small number of people fleeing of people fleeing desperate

situations does us all a dis

service and now we will have

this incredible spectacle of

six months in a leaky boat to sail around Australia to find

safe haven in New Zealand. Why

wouldn't we say, "We will judge

your claim for political

asylum." ? The Chinese

marijuanaers who are hanging

out in Darwin at the out in Darwin at the moment

have chosen not to submit

themselves... Because themselves... Because of Australia's immigration policy.

I cast this at both sides of

politics. We now treat

political a-asylum as a problem

rather than international

obligation. We've blown the

scope of the problem out of all proportion and then we have

these tortured debates about

the fate of a few sole souls

whose life has basically been

put at risk. Peter, you bring

up an interesting issue on your

piece in 'The Drum' that

Indonesian fishermen who Indonesian fishermen who are

crews on the boats that try to

seek asylum here. Why is their plight concerning you and why

did you bring it did you bring it up on 'The

Drum' today? Well, I've raised it because there were reports

last week out of the Senate

committee which were looking at

the issue and they were making a recommendation to the Government Government and I thought it was

worth bringing to people's

attention the fact that in recent times some of the laws

have been toughened up, some of those laws relate to these

fishermen, and I think that

most Australians would think

it's pretty rough to be putting

children basically into jail.

These are people who, in many

cases, barely know their cases, barely know their own age. There is a question mark

about ascertaining people's

age, but it seems to me in that

situation the current law which

says on the balance of

probabilities you can make a

decision that a person is overage when in fact they're

not. Now, I just don't think

that's acceptable to be putting

minors in jail and these people

are illiterate, have no idea

basically. They are pawns of

the criminals who are running

the people smuggling outfit.

Surely, Peter, you can't rein a compassionate line around

victims of laws that your

government were the intergators

of and Labor has continued

under their watch? Well, I

think I can and the fact is

that if there was a mistake

made in 2002, well, I think we

should be open about it and say

so. I mean, I wasn't there

then. I'm not walking away from

it because I wasn't there, but

you've got to understand in

2002 these laws were introduced but

but the Government's but the Government's policy at that time then stopped that time then stopped the

boats. Now, so, it wasn't an

issue. It has only become an

issue with the huge growth in

the number of people going to

jail in Australia as a result

of the changes made by the Rudd-Gillard Government. To walk away from what's

happening, I don't think that's

acceptable. I think when the

Rudd Government rolled back

elements of the Howard Government's border protection

regime, there was that phase

where Kevin Rudd where Kevin Rudd was anxious

not to be seen as a soft not to be seen as a soft touch

and then he had that slightly confusing stage where he was

talking about being tough yet

humane all the time, this sort

of grrr, cuddle, grrr, cuddle,

where he used this brutal

language about pollutioners,

being scum of the earth, worse

even than Gordon Ramsay, I

think, so quite bad, think, so quite bad, and elevating penalties for people

smugglers and emphasising smugglers and emphasising the

extent to which extent to which Australia would not tolerate this behaviour,

which is what waa has led us to

this position, I think, and the

difficulty is of course, you

have now an incentive for the

people smuggling kingpins to

recruit Victoriaage lads really

don't have much of an idea. But

anything you turn into a black market.

market. You criminalise effectively human rights and

you end up with all of these by-products that probably weren't thought through at the start of the process? Moving

on, the saga of the Health Services Union continues to

drag on. Senior figures are

trying to force out national

President Michael Williamson, currently suspended on currently suspended on full pay. 10 of the 14 execive

members think he should resign

for the good of the union, for the good of the union, but

Chris Brown says that's easier

said than done. I hope he would

consider that over the enshoe

suing days and resign from his

position. If he doesn't, there

is probably not immediately a

lot we can do until we have the

outcome of the inquiries outcome of the inquiries which

demonstrate that there has been wrongdoing and once those

inquiries either clear Mr

Williamson's name or demonstrate that there was

wrongdoing, there is probably

not a lot we can do, but if he

still refuses to step down,

then we can act under the rules of

of the union to remove him from office. The HSU's National

Secretary-turned-whistle blower

Kathy Jackson reckons Kathy Jackson reckons the entire Executive should go and

she is facing pressure to stand aside as well. Tony Abbott is

calling for the goo of the to take action against Craig

Thomson, the union's former national secretary. Unions

which have been exposed as

completely abusing completely abusing their members' trust and their

members' money do need to be cleaned up and they need to cleaned up and they need to be

cleaned up urgently, and the

Prime Minister cannot be the only person anywhere in Australia in the Labor Movement

who thinks that there is no problem with the Health

Services Union and no problem

with Craig Thomson. Why is the

Prime Minister alone amongst

everyone in the Labor Movement

in pretending that this doesn't

stink to high heaven? But the

Prime Minister continues to

argue that due process must be followed. During the Howard Government, there were members

who were subject of referral to

the DPP. Indeed, one of those members of Parliament members of Parliament is currently a Parliamentary Secretary on Tony Abbott's

frontbench. Prime Minister Howard then said proper

processes should be worked through. Tony Abbott supported

him in that. I'm saying what

was good enough then should

apply now . Proper processes

should be worked through. Peter

Reith, does the PM have a point

there? She says she is

following the press dense set by John Howard? It is the old

game, you know, our problem is

the same as the problem that

you had so we're all just as

bad, but, look, you can't make that comparison because that comparison because the

processes being followed by

Fair Work Australia do not Fair Work Australia do not meet

any minimum standards, and the

second thing to say is that the circumstances surrounding this

particular union have become so

grave that the ACTU has said

that they have to be suspended

because of the stench of

corruption which pervades the

operations of that union. So, I

just don't think there is just don't think there is any

comparison. I think it is a

very weak argument on her part

and it just shows and it just shows you

throughout this whole thing -

she has never shown, quite frankly the commonsense to

stand up, for example, on

whether or not the report

should be released. She misd a

golden opportunity. If she as

Prime Minister had said, "Look,

they are an independent body but I think that report should have

have been released and should

now be released," well, I think

she would have picked up a

couple of Brownie points, but instead she run this really

obscure and irrelevant line

which is that it's got nothing

to do with me". Well, she is

the Prime Minister. the Prime Minister. She should

be acting. She has just be acting. She has just sat

there and I'm afraid the

obvious conclusion for most

people is that she has done

nothing because it suits her

political situation in the

House with the one vote

required on Craig Thomson.

Look, it's just a saga of one

disaster after another, and

it's one of the many problems that surround Julia Gillard's

prime ministership. Annabel, is

that a fair comparison? I

don't think it's quite fair,

actually of the Prime Minister, just because - I absolutely

agree with her point that due

process should be observed. The difficulty here is that the

mechanisms by which one would

normally expect due process to be observed don't seem to be observed don't seem to be functioning very well, and in

the case that I think she was

sort of obliquely referring to

today with the Howard Government, I think it was the case in which a couple of MPs,

including the current serving Parliamentary Secretary Andrew lamb

lamb Ming were under

investigation for abnormalities in their use of electoral

allowances and so on, and that

was a process of investigation undertaken by the Australian

Federal Police and so on, and

that's the way those investigations happen. investigations happen. What's

happened here is you've had

Fair Work Australia devoting an

enormous amount of time to a considerable investigation,

coughing up 1100-page report

that no-one can read, including

the police, who you would

expect to be the best people expect to be the best people in the position to investigate

this. There has been a kind of

a process jam which is pretty

unacceptable whichever way you

slice it, so I think it's not

really a very reasonable comparison for her to

draw. Peter, have you felt

uncomfortable with the way the

Prime Minister has defended

Craig Thomson and the HSU? I

think we would be more

uncomfortable if we started a modus operandi in Australian

politics where members would

have to stand aside where

charges aren't even laid and allegations are allegations are made against

them. It's easy to lump the

ACTU's response to the Prime

Minister's situation Minister's situation but there

is an issue. The HSU - one

corporation does a bad thing,

the whole corporate community

doesn't need to clean up its

act. I accept that the act. I accept that the union movement needs to do that. I

think it is

think it is a different

principle and you've really got to think through what Tony

Abbott and by implication Peter

are saying, if we have a new

system which says when charges

are laid against an MP are laid against an MP should stand down, it will be open

season. It won't be good...

How can you say that the union

movement has this obligation to protect its brand It is a service industry, though. It's

looking after... What's a

political party? I don't political party? I don't know.

I think the overwhelmingly This

is a government, not is a government, not a

political party Well, it's

both, really. There is an

overwhelming problem with the

ACTU and the brand of unions,

but also a problem for but also a problem for brand Labor and brand Gillard Government Absolutely. But at

this point to ditch this guide

would be to change the rules

and I don't think it would be

good for... A matter for

discretion. It usually is The

delays in the report.

delays in the report. Going back to the Howard Government,

they spent $60 million on the

Cole royal commission. Of the sealed section was never made

public and that was never made

public because it would have

shown that there was shown that there was no

criminal allegation or criminal

allegation proven. Moving on,

bosses and unions are shaping

up for a battle over workplace flexibility. Fair Work

Australia has been receiving

plenty of submissions from

employer groups. Some are pushing to reduce working hours

to as low as 90 minutes a day.

Others want to abandon penalty

rates and cut weekend rate rs for individuals. Peter for individuals. Peter Lewis,

you've done a bit of polling on

the issue of polling rates when

it comes to weekends. What have

you found? There is overwhelming support overwhelming support to maintain penalty rates. To put

the 15 question: Should workers

get a higher hourly working

rate on the weekends or should it be the same as working

weekdays? 78% support the

maintenance of penalty rates.

18%. Really low, 4% don't 18%. Really low, 4% don't know. 73% of Coalition voters also support the maintenance of

penalty rates. This is a no-win

situation and if Tony Abbott

wants to go out there and back

in this proposal, I think the

real target is kids working

because the idea is to have lower rates for kids doing

weekend work. Parents don't want kids working in an

unregulated labour

#345rk9. Peter Reith, your

reaction to that polling? The

answer I think the answer I think the question

gives you the answer It is a

straight question. Should they

get a high other hourly rate.

If you want me to give you

some advice to run your polling

business Do you want to go on

retainer? We'll do to Is I

charge for giving advice like

that. I suggest you get

some. Would you like a more

productive paid workforce?

Well, you should ask people if

their circumstances are that

they work two days a week, you

should ask them whether or not

they should be paid more for

working on Saturday and Sunday

than they should be paid for

working on Monday or Tuesday, because that is a fair question. It would about question. It would about give you a different response to the

one you've got. For you to say

78% of people are in favour of

being paid more on a weekend,

I'm surprised it wouldn't be

90% who are in favour of being

paid more. But your paid more. But your argument

does talk to the fact of

whether there should be a weekend anymore or not because

you get rid of the notion of you get rid of the notion of a weekend once you start doing the flat rates? Well, let me

go to some facts here, to, in

respect of children, the system

for a long time has been that

they could work for reduced

hours after school basically,

and the reasonable this has

come up is because there were

three kids in ter rang a couple

of years back now who had a job

in the local co-op. The co-op

closed at 5 o'clock, but they could only start work at 3:30.

So, in other words, they So, in other words, they could

only get hour and a half's

work. Now, the union was

totally opposed to this because they said that the minimum

should be three hours, so

therefore the children should

be paid at twice the going

rate. Now, that's obviously not

competitive for the business. So those kids all lost

So those kids all lost their jobs and for giving those kids

a job, the union was attempting

to target the employer. Now,

that's just ridiculous. It is a

good idea for young people to

have an after-school job if

they can get one, and if it can

only be for an hour, well, only be for an hour, well, the system should be sufficiently

flexible to allow them to do

so, and it doesn't. And the

union movement is running a

campaign to prevent anything

less than three hours which,

for a lot of Australians, is

simply not realistic and certainly is not atuned to

their requirements. But what

you do end up is creating a

system of jobs which is the new lowest denominator and don't

try to tell me that more and

more employers would currently

try to turn the three and

four-hour shifts into the 90-minute shifts. Well, if the

requirement is for 90 minutes,

why should they pay for 4

hours? You're asking

me? Yes Because there should be

a minimum set of standards of

the way people engage in the

workplace, whether you're young

or old. The idea of getting

people in for half an hour,

come back later on, just

doesn't make up the set of

values that most Australians

think should be in the

workplace in this country.

I was in Queensland recently.

I was talking to a Queensland

tourist operator and he had a

bloke who worked for him and

the job was to drive a bus

the resort down to the get on a

ferry, so they can go wherever,

and this was a job that took hour and a half to two hour and a half to two hours.

For this guy, for the employer

and the employee, this was and the employee, this was a

good job for the employee. He

didn't want much work. It was

just a couple of hours and he

got paid for... A task got paid for... A task rather

than Thai job. What you're than Thai job. What you're say

something you can sit here in a

studio and tell the guy who is trying to run a trying to run a re-sourt,

trying to make a dollar, how

many hours that employee should

work I'm saying that we've got

a set of standards in this

country which says what a job

actually is and coming in for a

couple of hours isn't couple of hours isn't that. The head of the biggest un yoon head of the biggest un yoon to

the country Joe de Bruyn says 50% childcare rebate should be

extended to cover in-home care.

The national secretary of the

shop pis' union says it

discriminates against some families and Labor should

impose a means test but he is

also saying it's a waste of

time referring the thing to the

Productivity Commission. Peter Lewis, you've done another

poll. What does it show us? A

cum of weeks ago I was having

some barbs with this issue but

the majority of people actually

support the idea... So you are

wrong? You're out of touch,

peat I'm totally out of touch.

Friem a fringe dweller, on this one in particular. Not huge.

43, 22 of no opinion which is a

high don't know. What is the

Coalition/Labor split Coalition

57-44. 57% support Labor, a

third. 43 support, 39 oppose.

The Labor base is kind of low

at the moment, so... We asked

both of them and they were very interested. A split personality. So sometimes I

stand corrected. Sounds

popular, Annabel? Yes, well,

I'm not sure that Joe de I'm not sure that Joe de Bruyn is a totally unlikely supporter

of this proposal, by the way,

but I think the point here is

that we have a system of childcare rebate that is

non-means-tested, that is as non-means-tested, that is as a

system, it does not judge system, it does not judge on

need between wealthy and poor,

right, and what the Government

has been very anxious to do

ever since Tony Abbott floated

his, you know, vote Tony Abbott

and go into the draw for half

an au pair kind of scheme has been to switch on this

full-class rhetoric, by saying,

"People who get nannies are

paying to have chauffeurs and

chefs, and it's not just childcare that they're

getting," but the reality is if

you pay for childcare is family

day care, you take your kid to

somebody's house and they look

after your kid and probably

cook for them and wipe their

bottoms and so on during the

daytime. The only difference

with a nanny is that that

person comes to you. There is

no real difference on income or

kind of care, except for in

your own home care which is not presently covered by the scheme. Peter Reith, do scheme. Peter Reith, do you

support this policy? The policy

is centred all off to the

Productivity Commission. I would be interested in a

rational assessment of how we

should go about this. I'm with

Annabel in a way. You've got

one group that gets one benefit

that is not means-tested and

the other lot gets nothing. Peter, I think, makes Peter, I think, makes a reference to Joe de Bruyn.

Across party political lines, I

think there is quite

think there is quite a bit of

interest in this issue, and

some rational way of taking it

further is sensible. It's going

to cost money in the end. I've

always asked myself, well, if

you're spending money in pursuit of your work and the

gaining of income, well, why

can't that be deductible? I would like to you hear a would like to you hear a good

answer to that question as

well. Well, the Productivity Commission - well, the

productivity outcome is pretty

impressive: I don't understand

why we can't just have a discussion that doesn't have

all of the accrued judgments

and who is rich, who is poor,

who should be looking after

their kids, who is, you know...

this whole area is so ingrained

with weird cultural prejudices

that it's hard to look at it

for what it is, which is a productivity issue On this

poll, for a lot of people who

respond, this idea of work-life

balance is a lived experience

and any ideas will be rewarded

with support at the moment

because there is a sense that

the system isn't working. And

it taps into the cost of live

ugg which is a political

issue. Well, I think you're a

bit optimistic. The

Productivity Commission did a

very interesting report on the retail sector and that's how

some of these issues have come

up and your site, Peter up and your site, Peter has been knocking it as hard been knocking it as hard as

they can possibly go. So don't

hold your breath on a hold your breath on a rational public debate on this issue. Yes

issue. Yes and the lived

experience of the Productivity

Commission is a funny lived experience. Taking things to the Productivity Commission is

a sort of all wellie and knackers knackers yard.

They come out with a $16 million price tag It would be

like getting your like getting your bathroom

renovateded in Sydney. About 20

grand. Same thing. Mind you, in

this country, woo he have a of Liberal-Labor, left versus

right contest. If you go to

Europe, they don't understand

how we could have a left-right

fight over that issue. The big

one was the GST. If we could

have a bit more rational

discussion, we would have a discussion, we would have a far better system and getter government Maybe the carbon

price. Not at $23. The New South Wales Premier's dismissal

of a second airport for of a second airport for Sydney

cob a tough sell within his own party. Barry party. Barry O'Farrell's

Cabinet is said to be unhappy

with the decision. The main

target of his derision is the

high #47b speed rail link to

Canberra Airport to deal with

the growing demand, but a

spokesperson for the Premier

says he said he wouldn't says he said he wouldn't dump

aircraft noise on Sydney's west

and he is planning to deliver

on his promise. Annabel, business, unions, they all business, unions, they all want

the airport in the Sydney basin Yes, although where-ish.

Anthony Albanese wants to put

it at Wilton. He is a long-term

defender of Badgerys Creek.

Here is what I think is magical about the O'Farrell position.

There are these two kind of shemirk beasts of

infrastructure, the very fast

train link which will go anywhere from Brisbane to,

wherever. Which has been put up

and think tasked and

feasibility studied over the

last 30 years and never

happened. Then you've got the

second Sydney Airport, 1700 hectares of land which has hectares of land which has been

sitting there at Badgerys Creek

for 27 years waiting for somebody

somebody to just build it somebody to just build it and that hasn't happened either.

What O'Farrell has done is used

one mythical beast to beat the

other. " We will build

other. " We will build the

train and that will mean we won't have to have an airport."

I think he has decreased any

further the chances that the

outcome he is looking for, but

it's one of these rare cases where the land is there to build a second airport, build a second airport, has

been since 1986 or when ever it

was when Paul Keating and Bob

Hawke bought it and for one reason or another, even with

that piece of foresight having

been executed, all that length

of time ago, we still can't

quite get there in terms of making the political making the political decision.

This is one of the great things perpetrated on the people of

Sydney in history. You set

aside some land, the land near

the airport site is cheap, then

all of a sudden the people who

buy the cheap land say, "No, we don't want an airport," and

the The brothel or the gambling

den Yes, an den Yes, an outrage. Barry

O'Farrell could win the O'Farrell could win the outrage

of every single inner of every single inner Sydney

resident who has to turn down

'The Drum' because you can't

hear anything at this time of

night. This is a really bad

argument. Peter, a very fast train down the corridor? Well,

not from me, especially if the New South Wales taxpayers pay

for it, as a Victorian f that's

what they want to do. I've sat

around the Cabinet around the Cabinet table,

talking about where we would

put another arnt and honestly I

can't see anybody making can't see anybody making a

decision on that based on my experience, so maybe Barry's

lateral thinking there might lateral thinking there might be

one possible answer, but is it

going to happen? Probably not. Actually, I tell you what, though... You were in the

Cabinet in 2000, weren't Cabinet in 2000, weren't you, which is when Badgerys Creek

got knocked on the head and the

decision was that Sydney didn't

need a second airport? Well, I

don't know whether we decided

that we didn't need one, but we

certainly didn't need one.

Everybody knows how to make

stuff stop happening. Of

everyone knows we need another

airport, and a fast train airport, and a fast train as

well. No-one has a clue to

force people to take long-term

decisions. We have a three-year

cycle and surplus fetish Well,

to be honest, it's not because

they're incompetent, it's the

fact that there are just so

many interested parties here

with different views, it's very hard to find some hard to find some reconciled

way ahead and that's why it's

been in limbo for, what, 30

years. I mean, it's taken -

over the course of those 30 years, the interests of the

people who did buy around Badgerys Creek have now Badgerys Creek have now become

entrenched. There is a

generation of entitlement generation of entitlement that

have now grown up Well, don't

whinge about it.

That liveable land, 1700

hectares is still zoned hectares is still zoned special activities, brackets, Commonwealth, close brackets. For the Labor. A speedway. In

2003 when Simon Crean was the

leader, he made the reasonably unilateral decision at the time

to rule out badge Rhys Creek as

the site of the second airport.

Now, Anthony Albanese who was then the Shadow then the Shadow transport spokesman went bananas and actually defied krooen in

public and it's really only

public and it's really only in the years since that he has

covered up the idea. Still kick

ago long. Coming up next on

'The Drum', why is FaceBook

paying a billion dollars for a

company that doesn't make a

profit? We'll ask the ABC's

technology expert Marc fennel. This Program is Captioned Live.

FaceBook has made its biggest

purchase yet, splashing out $1 billion on the photo-sharing

app Instagram. If you don't

know what we're talking about,

Instagram is used by millions of Smartphone users to add

effects to photographs taken on

their phones, but the tiny

company is only 2 years old and

so far hasn't turned a profit.

The Instagram deal is seen as a

move by FaceBook to strengthen

its market dominance against

potential threats by Google and

Pinterest and it's expected to

bolster the social network's

appeal when its shares go

public next month. To explain

what it all means, Marc Fennell from 'Download This Show' joins us from the studio. Thanks for

coming on again It is a

pleasure. Why is FaceBook

paying so much for Instagram, a

company that doesn't have a

business model that business model that lends

itself to profits? Well, it's

all part of the very strange

economics of Silicon Valley

which is to say no to economics

whatsoever. The whole business

of spending a lot of money on of spending a lot of money on a company that hasn't made money

why et is quite common. Often

in Silicon Valley you're

looking at companies that go

for three, sometimes four years

without making money. Instagram

does make sense, though. First and foremost it is a growing

company filled with a lot of

young users and FaceBook is massive, but its list of new users has actually plateaued a

bit, so to introduce a new company into the mix in the

form of Instagram says to the

new investors or people on Wall Street, that we're actually

becoming a family of company in

the same way that Google bought

YouTube a couple of years ago, ""We're expanding our power of

what we do." Is it creating a

buzz? Well, I'm not a guy who

wears a suit, so not something I know. It is definitely

creating a buzz. A lot of

people are looking at Instagram

in a way we didn't necessarily

before because there is a whole

bunch of photo-adapting apps that you can get for Smartphones and android phones,

but the real innovation of Instagram is the sharing

app. They love our data, don't they? Well, FaceBook is in the

business of building the most

complex psycho graphic profile of you again Yes, very

comforting. It's lovely In some

ways they are much better at it. Google uses thee elaborate

Al Gorisms of what you're

interesting in based on what

type of porn you're interested in Well, speak

for... Everything you post or

not FaceBook is not FaceBook is innately personal, what you like, what you don't like. To add

Instagram into that is helpful

because when you take your picture, you apply your filters,

filters, you follow people, people follow them. 330 million

people. The most useful thing

is locations. Currently you can

post where your photo was post where your photo was taken

in a certain location and

Instagram uses Four Square, the really really big location really big location services.

One of these things that

makes you very burr larable. I'm here at the

studios, rob my house. What's interesting, though, what if

Instagram suddenly institute FaceBook's database there, that's suddenly adding between

30 and potentially 100 million

new people adding to FaceBook's location database.

I think we agree it's totally terrifying. Peter and I first looked at Instagram

today. Yes, about two hours

ago. What are the cool kids on

Instagram think now that we are

in there? This is what Well, of course you're cool . Well, you

are a dear boy. But it's like

Rupert Murdoch buying MySpace.

What happened to MySpace...

What happened to MySpace... he

had to sell it to... It's had to sell it to... It's like

the bands which sign with the

major record labels, will they lose their credibility. Very

big part of the tech crowd liked Instagram this liked Instagram this morning

and we saw a backlash this

morning but it be honest, I

think that backlash is isolated

within the tech crowd. It is a growing service. Instagram just instituted instituted their android version of the application and

that opens up their market

massively potentially massively potentially to eye

whole thu new number of people.

Potentially they will have 100

million people potentially

feeding into the more data

which FaceBook, 8 - 850

million. I know the numbers are

massive. I know you're not Mr

Wall Street, but I don't get

this part of it. this part of it. They purchased

it for a billion. It was valued

at half of that amount. Why did

FaceBook not develop their own

app or why did they just not buy a cheaper version? Well,

about June last year it was

leaked that FaceBook were in

fact developing their own

version of a photo-sharing version of a photo-sharing app. We don't know what's happened

to it but I Sir day we won't see it then. FaceBook released

an app which was a chat

service. They were going to

launch a photo-sharing version

of that. Now I guess they don't

have to because they can

potentially fold this detail

in. In all of this it should be said that FaceBook have been

very, very clear that they will

not subsume Instagram into its

own brand, keep it as their own

independent brand. Instagram was great because was great because you could

share it with FaceBook, not

with the Flicker. Not

anymore No, you will still be

able to do that. It has pub bell written over it. Massively overvalued companies.

How do you make Instagram

pay, a deeply obvious bell

and a stupid one to ask, but

just remind me? Presumably the

way you would make value out of the Instagram, you are often

taking photos of things that

you like, locations, all that

information you can feed information you can feed back

to the FaceBook mothership and

you can use that information

And suddenly the kitten market

goes utterly berserk You can

target ads. I know lots of

people find the idea of people find the idea of target

ads a bit creepy, but my

attitude is if you are going to

advertise to me, at least

advertise things that I'm interested in Does that

actually work. Or is it like

Elle door rad dough in the

future No, it's being sold on

FaceBook right now. The fact

that will they can sell mortar

getted ad s in, advertisers

will pay for it. Online advertising, it's very trackable. When you watch a

television show, when you buy

advertising on a television show, you get given this number

that's made from a sample that

- you deal with polling, you

know how made up this crap is,

whereas at least on whereas at least on the Internet, actual

click-throughs, you can

actually count that How long they've been at the page. And

you've got a vague idea of what

sort of stuff they need. Like

newspapers going into the need

of verticals of babies or

whatever. If you can pitch an

ad to 500 people who have just

had a baby... They are the

ones you want to reach. Guys,

we will have to leave it there.

Thanks very much to the panel -

Annabel Crabb, Peter Lewis and

Peter Reith. Thanks to Marc

Fennell for joining us as well.

The drum website is abc.net.au/thedrum. I will see

you again the same time tomorrow night.

Closed Captions by CSI.