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. This Program is Captioned

Hello. I'm Richard The Prime Minister has flown Hello. I'm Richard Davies.

the front line in Afghanistan The Prime Minister has flown to

to thank Australian troops. The past 12 months have been the

diggers killed. Julia Gillard bloodiest of the war with

says Australia will see through its mission, despite the

southern Afghanistan, costs. On a sandy airstrip in

southern Afghanistan, an

unannounced visit from a VIP on her

her way home from

Europe. Hello! G'day! How are

you? It's been a tough and deadly year for the Australian days ago, three of their

comrades were killed and others

injured in nearby

Kandahar. Yesterday you dealt

with that deep sadness in dignified way that with that deep sadness in the

do. Julia Gillard came dignified way that you

Australia's main do. Julia Gillard came to

Australia's main base at Tarin

Kowt to thank troops for Kowt to thank troops for their

service and to reassure them of continuing support back

home. Too late now! Your mates

down by military-issued set you up! Over lunch, washed

non-alcoholic Minister heard the soldiers'

views on their mission. Her

visit also included meetings

with the governor And talks with coalition commanders about Australia's ongoing role in the war torn country The war torn country The progress

that has been made, the

challenges. Then was back into the air for a helicopter

journey to the Afghan capital. There the Prime Minister was welcomed by President Hamid Karzai. Prime Minister, welcome to Afghanistan. She pledged ongoing support for the fragile

democracy and officially opened the symbol of it, the new of Kabul. The Prime Minister

used the occasion to thank Australian consular

serving in the most dangerous

of diplomatic postings and promised promised an enduring

presence. We intend to play a

role as a partner and a friend

of yours for a long period of

time. We are and will and

always remain grateful to the people of Australia for their

sacrifices in years to help us build a

secure, stable, democratic

Afghanistan. A military

commitment that winds down from

being 2014. Treasurer Wayne Swan is

Government's plan for a budget

surplus next financial year may

not be achievable. Economic forecaster Deloitte Access

economics says the Budget is heading

heading for a deficit of almost

$2 billion in 2012/13. It warns spending could harm further cuts to government

economy. spending could harm the

has vowed to keep his surplus

promise, but say it is will be difficult considering the economic condition. So ongoing Budget discipline is necessary. It's absolutely Budget discipline is absolutely

necessary at a time when there is such turbulence in global markets. So, global turbulence

has hit Budget revenues, and

that certainly means that we

will need to find further

savings as we go through to the

mid-year economic and fiscal outlook. A new Greek Prime Minister will soon be after it was agreed George

Papandreou will not lead the

new government. The nation's

main political parties have agreed in principle to the

formation of a coalition government. The deal is aimed government.

at ending the country's

political crisis and stopping

the Government from going bankrupt. The local share

market has closed down slightly as worries continue about Greece's financial and

political problems. still no closer to reaching an Qantas

agreement with the airline agreement with the airline on

the first day of talks to

resolve their pay dispute. The

negotiating at Fair Work parties spent the day

Australia in

Australia in Melbourne. The industrial umpire has given the Qantas and the aircraft

engineers union 21 days to

resolve their differences. We've been in here

all day, had a good chat about

the prospective agreement. I

can't say we are any close tore

an outcome as we speak, but you never know what will never know what will develop

later in the week of the we are

meeting again on Thursday and

Friday in Fair Work Australia Sydney. Tiger Woods has had a

whistlestop tour of Melbourne

today. Woods will be in Sydney tomorrow ahead of this week's

Australian Open. Now, we'll

join Tim Palmer with 'The Drum'

in just a moment, but first

let's take a look at what tomorrow's weather has in This Program is Captioned


Hello. Welcome to drm drum.

I'm Tim Palmer. Coming up today

- the Australian boy in Bali on

drug charges, so should his

family be alloweded to sell their story? Can

deliver a surplus, and does it matter anyway? And will Julia

Gillard's time on the

international stage give her a

boost when she gets back home? Our panel Our panel tonight - Tim will

sob from the irns stut of public affairs, Sue Cato public affairs, Sue Cato from

Cato Counsel, author Cato Counsel, author and blogger Antony Loewenstein and

the ABC's economics correspondent Stephen Long and You can join in on Twitter, using the hashtag "thedrum". The Australian

teenager facing drug charges in

Bali is due to be sentenced this week.

court would release strong hopes the Indonesian

14-year-old into his family's court would release the

care to be treated for cannabis addiction back home in Australia. Then the reports emerged that the boys' agreed to sell their story to Channel Nine for $300,000. Channel Nine for $300,000. The

network has now issued a statement denying any such

deal, but it has raised any

questions about the case,

including whether the family should be selling their story

at all. We've asked for your tweets on this issue, too. Sue,

can I avoid a rather pathetic

question which is have the boys' parents and handled this very well and ask

an older question which is, is

it mandatory for a it mandatory for a family in

to hire an agent? Well, maybe these sort of circumstances now

not an agent, but they

certainly needs somebody who

knows the way it works to look

after them. There is enormous

pressure in these situations.

The various media houses play

very, very hard ball when

they're trying to get the yarn which is the reason it broke

over the weekend, because

somebody thought they had

missed out, so they thought they would loving the boy to beating the

boy and the family up because

they thought they had missed out, because that's what's gone

on. If you stand back for a

sec, there would be very,

few families who could actually

afford the legal costs that

have come with this drama. The mother staying over here,

father is out of work. This

would be a family would be a family who probably has to sell the home. Is has to sell the home. Is there

an excuse for this because

there are plenty of people who

face legal proceedings, without having a spectacular story to sell? In my situation, would I

advise anyone ever to sell the

story if you had a choice? No.

The timing of this is horrific,

obviously the judgment is

coming down at the end of the

week. But seriously if you are in the centre of these storms

and you are just a normal

household who has never had any dealings when the dealings when the media is

playing hard ball, you do need

somebody to get in the way. It

would be nice if you didn't.

But when you've got people in the way who are loving you, taking your taking your dog on walks, loving the boy, but. loving the boy, but. The Prime

Minister talking to him. Being

dealt with by the the suggestion that the family

is getting money. A lot of

people have done a lot of people have done a lot of stuff

to make it harder than it otherwise being much The way it's unfolded now, it would

hurt his prospect snoos Probably. In the long run, someone would go to jail for

this seems absurd. Comparison that comes to mind is David

Hicks. I'm not saying they are being dealt with for proceeds

of crime from selling his book

and other products F there and other products F there is got to be one rule for one and

one rule nor fore, David Hicks

should be able to keep the

money he got. His trial was a

Kangaroo court in the first

place. With the Bali drug guy,

if the parents are trying to make money, it doesn't

particularly bother me. I think the average person doesn't

worry about how a story is

told, but I think the average

citizen is cynical about the

fact that how media companies

try to exploit that

can't blame, as Sue said, a

family trying to make money, it's not particularly morally

problematic, the companies themselves who are make money off it which is more troubling. The authorities went

after David Hicks, and

Schapelle Corby, should Schapelle Corby, should they go after this as well. Yes, they should maintain a should maintain a consistent approach, but if there is one

sure fire way to make sure sure fire way to make sure you don't get the best outcome don't get the best outcome in an Indonesian court it's to

wave your hands around and

"I'm here trying to get

attention to myself." They've

placed the child in huge

jeopardy by their conduct. The decision weighted this week,

extreme ly ill advise pd extreme ly ill advise pd and

I've heard reports that the

family doesn't have an agent,

just a rogue individual who has tried to tried to extract a commission

in the process, but that comes

with a huge cost potentially

for the justice that he will receive. Damage potentially done already. A quarter of a

million is a lot of money in Bali, clearly in

the judges, but not a lot of

money when held up against a

Budget surplus. The Federal

Government is re-affirming its commitment to deliver a surplus of $3.5 billion in

2012/13. The Treasurer 2012/13. The Treasurer says it's determined to on it's determined to on its promise despite the economic challenges. Australian growth

of 3 or 3.5 or 3.25% is still very healthy growth in global

terms. But lower growth does

mean lower Budget revenues and it certainly does make it

tougher to get back to surplus

as planned, but we are determined to do so. Well, to

achieve that goal, finance

minister Penny Wong says minister Penny Wong says some tough saving measure also be needed. She concedes the Eurozone Eurozone debt crisis hasn't

helped matters. We're not

immune in terms of our budget from what's happening on global

markets fnl obviously Australia

faces this volatility with a great

great deal of strength and very

low public debt and low

unemployment, but obviously sl is

is an impact and we've that clear. Respected forecaster Deloitte Access economics says Labor economics says Labor is

actually facing a $2 billion

deficit, suggesting a return to

surplus is mainly surplus is mainly a political objective. Opposition Leader Tony Abbott maintains the Government can't be

trusted. They talk about a surplus, but every day surplus, but every day they are

borrowing $100 million-plus.

Yet another example of the fact

that you just can't trust the

current government with economic management current government with the economic management of our

nation. Tim, a $3.5 billion

surplus turns, according to

Deloitte Access, to $2 Deloitte Access, to $2 billion deficit, but deficit, but in Deloitte

Access's figure own words, both

figures are waver thin in terms

of the Budget. Should we be worried about this worried about this at all? Well, the Government should be politically worried

because they've boxed

themselves in regardless of themselves in regardless of the circumstances and the Opposition will hold them to that successfully. In terms of

the economics, should we be worried about it?

should be nervous about it because at the end of the day

countries don't go from great economic performers to economic performers to basket

cases overnight. It is a slow loosening of the belt every

single year. That's why we

should be looking at

southerning to surplus as

quickly as possible and pay

back public debt which back public debt which is

absolutely vital in case we go

into significant economic

catastrophes in the best possible position. Sue Cato, has the Government itself in I would argue that

the Opposition has boxed itself

in because it's arguing an

economic irrational and annoying position right would trust the economists

before I trust the Opposition

and quite frankly the Government. It's reasonable policy Let's not mess up

politics and policy here. This

is all about politics. It's

carping. Everyone who is sane

and rational out there is saying get over it, this isn't

a big deal. If we're just in a deficit, which if we are 2

million down, 2 I think million down, 2 I think it's

billion Sorry, it was billion Sorry, it was my announceation, not clear. Thanks Thanks for picking me up. Know I will pay it back later: The

bottom line is a carping

Opposition, the sensible people

saying get over it, it's not a

big deal. If there is another

massive drop in the global markets, Australia actually

will need to look at will need to look at further

stimulus for our economy, and

you know you know what? With the Opposition doing this, the win

is the Government make more cuts and that will

probably be a win for the Opposition because they will

have to make further cuts to

stay in surplus. The scary case

that in fact just how big a deficit the Government might be

dealing with or not could be in

the hands of God forbid somebody like Silvio Berlusconi? That is the

probably. We're really captive

to international vaets, Tim and what we're seeing in what we're seeing in Europe actually tells an actually tells an interesting story because accepting Tim's

point that the austerity

measures or that we have to have a situation where you have

sustainable public finances in

the long run, the austerity

measures that are being put in

place in various place in various European countries now are driving them deep into recession, and we are actually under threat here that

the Government, in its the Government, in its desire

to placate the poll teches and

get the politics right,

actually does the wrong thing economically, because economically, because if Europe

does drag us down, this will be the worst time to be the worst time to be cutting back on government back on government spending,

but the problem is that we had the former Treasurer Peter successful animal farm

economics where it was

essentially fed to the public:

Surplus good, deficit bad under

all circumstances. Even if you do scrape Government rather than challenging it, bought the line. Well, the carbon tax

legislation is just one step

away from becoming law. It is due to pass through as early due to pass through the Senate

as early as tomorrow. On the eve of that vote, the Minerals Council of Australia Council of Australia is

claiming Labor's pricing policy

will have a much bigger impact

on productivity and the cost of living than promised. It's

released its modelling done by the Centre for International

Economics which predicts GDP will fall by $180 billion between next between next year and 2020,

that is six times more than the

Treasury estimates. Tim, do you

agree that this model, done agree that this model, done for the Minerals Council of

Australia, takes absolutely the worst case as assumptions in

terms of other countries

acting? No, I think it takes a

very realistic assessment at the end of the the end of the day. The problem with the that it was alwaysed in a fairytale world and anyone fairytale world and anyone who

done the analysis knew that.

The idea that all these

countries would take on the

equivalent amount of cost as us

was not a reasonable

judge economic modelling and

public policy and what the Minerals Council report has

done is probably taken a more

realistic, might be a bit more

negative, but a more realistic

approach as to what approach as to what the actual

cost of a carbon tax will be

and how it will flow through

and how it will flow through to households and everybody else,

but we will only find out on 1 July. Fairy the other one is a-apocalyptic.

Stephen Long, are these assumptions more reasonable.

Sick times. 11,000 by amplg, not 5,000 household.

Electricity up 30%, not 10%. If

this does come to fruition,

it'ses end of any government

that introduced it Well, it all

depends on the modelling depends on the modelling and

the modelling is modelling an inherently uncertain future. Treasury everyone will stick to their commitments that they made at

the Copenhagen summit and that

also we will move towards a

global trading scheme. If those

things don't happen, then the

costs could be higher for

Australia, but we don't know

what's going to happen , and to give

give you a fairly pertinent example of why you should

always be sceptical of push

polling, this kind of modelling, the Centre for International Economics was

commissioned to model the US

free trade deal. They said it would

would deliver a $4 billion-a-year boost to the assumption was that the exchange rate of the Australian

dollar to the US dollar would

be 50 cents Australian to $1 US. This was the same

consultancy that has delivered that report now. Are you

suggesting in this case they've got the Minerals Council

commissioned them? Mote of this

kind of research is pay the

Piper. I'm not saying that it

isn't valid wb the terms of its methodology, but you have to

very, very sceptical about all of this research. Lone Len lone, what do you see this The problem is that Access Economicses is that the media takes these so-called independent reports which are actually not on face value.

Every day most of the Murdoch

press, Fairfax press and ABC

bless them who run this

material without question. What

I would say is that the media

needs to be more sceptical of

modelling by anybody. Doesn't

matter if it is a thing tank or

thing think tank or anyone else. The sceptical which they're kind of

not. We can all be very

sceptical. The Institute of Public Affairs has its report

out today on how the Greens are

influencing the economy and Tim Wilson, you argue it is not just about the carbon tax? Well, it's fundamentally

not. I go through this report

which is available on our

website but actually look at

the policy measures where the Greens are having an Greens are having an influence. Yes, the carbon tax is one of them, creating false them, creating false foundation

for the economy to set up but also looking at

certification standards on how

they're now arguing through import restrictions that

product primary industry output

has to be has to be certified. Let's take a look at an example of how

they're policing the supply chain, as you're virtually suggesting Sure. Fair trade coffee, you raise as one

example. That's a certification that has been developed by Green groups. Is that such Green groups. Is that such a bad thing that people get some idea that there is a idea that there is a threshold of ethical behaviour by

suppliers? Well, not just coffee, suppliers? Well, not just about

palm oil and the roundtable for

sustainable palm oil, but about these standards and whether

they're voluntary or not. If

people want to buy these products with these certification standards, good

luck to them if they agree with

them, but when they're required

by law to be part of the

process of whether a product is process of whether a product is

imported Northern Territory, it

takes firstly away the

voluntary dimension of it and

poses on consumers what they

want, but also hands over the

supply chain to a lot of

industries - groups about how industries are

going to be managed and that's

a challenge. Let ease look at

two of those you two of those you mintioned, timber and palm oil, for

example, it's not as if are not constrained by laws are not constrained by laws in countries like Indonesia, They

are. Surely these are checks to

allow consumers or governments

to ensure themselves that the

product arriving here conforms to law Simpb certification

standards as well. There are ones run by green groups and ones that are run by governments or semi-government arms and

increasingly is a lot of green groups putting on pressure that

only the ones they control

should be the ones that are

imported into this country. You can come up with a

can come up with a scenario

where government is at least

should be more confident in the

way that their scheme works

versus ones operated by external parties. You extend this argument to suggest that the Greens are in some way

harking back to - we'll talk

about the range of people harking back to harking back to protectionism.

But in what way are you

suggesting that suggesting that Greens want to

throw back to protectionist... They want to

control the supply chain. World

Wildlife Fund reports about market transformation initiatives which is about getting control through certification standards of the

supply chain and controlling

those and increasing standards opt costs and business which

will ultimately flow through to

consumers. If you want to make

those a requirement for product

to be imported you are

increasing costs for businesses

and consumers in the process.


have a free market think tank

which releases a report about the Greens essentially saying

which is what your organisation

has said since they got balance of power last year the sky of power last year the sky was

going to fall out of control. The fact out of control. The fact is certain Green certain Green groups are

pushing forward ideas that are making more accountability in

what we actually buy. I'm not

suggesting there shouldn't be

checks on that. Of course there

should be checks on things but

you and your organisation seems

to be arguing for a sense somehow

somehow that unless the free market decides everything,

the market is not the best way to manage that, I would

argue That's the thing. Voluntary certification

standards are part of the free

market. It is when they market. It is when they seek to

have them legally required that

they stop being voluntary, no longer part of the free market and and that's a protectionist measure. When someone is forced to do

forced to do it There is a forced to do it There is a big difference between choosing to

do something and being forced. When it is an import restriction, it becomes

essentially a trade barrier.

What we've seen also is a

of green NGOs forcing business

indirectly by teaming up and

playing a game of good cop and

bad cop. The report includes

documents where Greens peace

says we play the bad cop to send them over to the good

cop. If I can sell your

website address, do I get a

free T-shirt like krooik ki? I

notice you got. Crikey? I

noticed you got that in.

Mandated safe workplaces on They are a product. Obviously a different

argument. It is an impost on a business, a cost on a business

to actually do it And doesn't a

market exist within a of laws and isn't this mere

Lianne extension of framework of

of laws and regulation, so we

should judge them on their should judge them on their own

Merritts whether they're good

as policy But there is a big difference when you have a

green group out there that

controls the standard like forestry stewardship Council. It is controlled by Greenpeace and other organisations and

they go to must mandate component nepts of our forestry stewardship

council which is required. You

are externalising. Government is externalising regulation.

Tim, it's called democracy, my friend. It's fascinating, Tim, and interesting food for

thought that when we buy fair

trade coffee that we're trade coffee that we're putting a brake on a brake on the free-wheeling economy. Back to the central

government. It has been a busy

week for Julia Gillard on the

international stage. Last week she leaders at the G20 and pitching

the idea of a debt buffer to stop other countries following

Greece's spiral. She headed straight from the straight from the French riff yearia to southern Afghanistan where she met the troops and

pledged her long-term commitment to the mission by

opening the new Australian embassy We came to Afghanistan and we have found some

tremendous days of sorrow, tremendous days of sorrow, but we have also found a great

friendship, and I think opening

up this new facility is a symbol of friendship and partnership between our two countries. We

are saying to you that we

intend to play a role as a

partner and a friend of yours

for a long period of for a long period of time to come. Antony Loewenstein,

talking about a long period of

time to come, Julia Gillard already flagged we will be there until the end of the

decade. General Allen speaking

after he spoke to the Prime

Minister, the head of the Coalition, said that NATO

troops will be involved

post-transition. Do you think Australians have still got it

in their heads that we're there

this stage? No, in fact poll after poll after poll for at

least five years find the vast

majority of Australians want to pull out. We have a situation where our Prime Minister goes to Afghanistan

talking about being dedicated

to the mission. The mission

essentially is supporting a corrupt government which

supports no-one themselves. supports no-one except

themselves. We have a weird

situation where we are only

there for US alliance maintenance. That's the only

reason we're there. If Gillard it's to keep the US it's to keep the US President happy. That's the only wreen

why we're there. And a lot

people who report independently from Afghanistan imbedded journalists with the

troops, clearly say there is no independent aid, what we're

doing there, including with drug lords, drug lords, warlords. If the

Prime Minister wants to talk

about honty in Government, we

should pull out and this is a

position supported by the vast

majority of Australians for years. Sue Cato, to the

superficial politics That's a charming handover,

Tim, thanks for that. Has that

been a good couple of weeks

Julia Gillard? G20, this has

positioned her much better in

Afghanistan and she is away and

has survived this period after

way when people are saying time

is running out this year for

leadership challenge. Has it

all worked out well? I think

this is probably the best

period she has had for quite the Qantas issue will be the

gift that keeps on giving. The

reality is the moans and the

whining and bitching with Tony Abbott this is good for her.

Or Kevin The electorate is

over. These guys fighting the

way they've fights. They have not listened to either one of

them. With her coming out,

being on the international stage, being a statesman, on a day-to-day basis, it will

help. The question is how long the

the lift she will see in the

poll ps and having a quiet

moment with Obama, how moment with Obama, how long

will that hold? I would probably not very probably not very long. But

long enough to get her long enough to get her through Christmas into the next parliamentary year? Well, you know it

know it is the faceless know it is the faceless guys who are actually out there briefing who say she has until

February and March, so we'll see. What about the issue of conscious vote on same-sex

marriage. This will put some marriage. This will put some of

the Australian Christian lobby off-side, but it could

re-position the party if it

does get up? She does get up? She is at war with

the left and various others. This

This is actually in the a

massive gift and ultimately if

it does go through - the

reality is if you look at the

pure factional numbers on the

floor that are coming up at floor that are coming up at the ALP National Conference and you

look at the nature of the vote

going through, even if it goes through National Conference,

and it will probably get voted

obviously will be in Caucus, so

she is sharing the she is sharing the burden, if

you like. On the ish sure of

marriage, there is concern from

child protection group s that

there are reports that teenage

girls are being brought to Australia for arranged Australia for arranged marriage

programs. 200 17-year-olds were granted prospective spouse visas over the next 20 years

and many more sponsored by older men: The girls older men: The girls must marry their sponsor within their sponsor within nine months of arrival. Shadow Immigration Minister Scott

Morrison is calling for a review of the program and an explanation to Parliament from

Minister Chris Bowen. When you

have the sorts of stories have the sorts of stories that were reported today were reported today which

involve allegedly girls under

the age of 18 being brought out

on marriage visas, prospective

marriage visas to marriage visas to people sometimes three times their

age, then alarm bells should certainly ring, and what

to know is have those to know is have those alarm

bells been ringing? Have those

applications been properly

interrogated? Are there issues within the Department Immigration which are being

more positive on these sorts of

applications than others? And

if so y? Tim Wilson, do alarm if so y? Tim Wilson, do alarm

bells ring for you, as scorndz

says he is -, are you disturbed

as Scott Morrison says he

is Well,. Too many people want to actually have children who are minors and coming into this

country, it makes me, yes, very uncomfortable and I think a lot

of people would take a

similar view because ultimately it fills back into this idea of

how much of this is consensual,

how much of it is about getting

into the country and how much is sustainable. Not is sustainable. Not necessarily for visa purposes. 6,000 visas

per year. Approximately 40 are

17 and many are

they're married. Sue Cato, is this just a cultural this just a cultural difference issue? Some people are

responding to the age. To responding to the age. To me

anyone who is coerced into marriage, it is an issue. It is

the compulsion It is the compulsion and we've got laws in this nation. People who are

actually saying and you actually saying and you hear, "I don't want to "I don't want to marry someone," and by the way I someone," and by the way I will have to have a with Tim Wilson later about

gay marriage is a threat to the institution. I was Ow! 1-1. 1-1. Seriously, in this country, and if somebody

doesn't want to get married,

you shouldn't be compelled to get married. It's happening in

this country, these weddings

after the immigration. Are you

suggesting that with arranged

marriages, which we know exist

in Australia Of course they

do. For people already in Australia, that there is no

sense of some level of

persuasion or coercion that is not much different from

this? And of course there are

arranged marriages. We've got

all sorts of different situations, horrid situations, but

Australia that if you really

were being coerced and being

threatened into a marriage like

that, that there would be at

least somewhere in a community,

no matter what culture, in any community community that you could put

your hand up and say, "I don't

want to do this." Maybe yike

living in La-La Land, but in

Australia you would like to

think that if you were under emotional law orifice law under

duress, there was some way out.

Sometimes people don't Sometimes people don't want to step outside. I will throw to you, Anthony. Is 'The

Telegraph' playing up on what a

lot of people would say, lot of people would say, "Yuck,

that doesn't feel right."

Interestingly with the online version, they version, they pictured a 9-year-old girl from Yemen, no

intention of coming to Australia. Is that what 'The

Telegraph' is playing on, or is

there a genuine concern? I

think it's playing to try think it's playing to try to illicit fear. If there are

people as both Sue and Tim people as both Sue and Tim have

said who are brought out here

under duress, under duress, that's unacceptable, full stop, no

matter what matter what religion or culture they're from. Arranged

marriages are not illegal. I think it's placing into the idea particularly in elements

of Islamic state, say, in

Afghanistan, girls of of the 99

marrying guys of 9. Murdoch

press puts an image with an press puts an image with an

article like that, that brings

the illusion to readers that's

actually what's happening,

where it's not. If 40 people

out of 6 ,000 you say are under

18, that is a problem but

should be looked at, but the

sky is not about to fall

in. Stephen, does there need to

be extra care and be extra care and ex-interest

checks if there is a 17-year-old slated to marry

someone approaching 50, as a

couple of examples in this

case. Do you think it

case. Do you think it carries

bureaucratic checks? I find it

a little disturbing. The a little disturbing. The point

is not whether or not we need

extra bureaucratic checks, that

it comes within the law. There is probably an economic

dimension to this as well. What's

drivers for these arranged marriages beyond culture? marriages beyond culture? In

many cases there is probably an

economic dimension to look at

in this. I guess if you're facing a poor

marriage with a big age gap in,

say, Afghanistan or Lebanon and

the choice was to have it the choice was to have it in

Australia, there is no surprise

that people might actually

choose to come here. To choose to come here. To the future of the manufacturing

sector which has been under

scrutiny from both sides of

politics. With the closure of

steel plants and hundreds of

jobs in doubt. Last month

jobs in doubt. Last month the Government held a forum with unions and employers, the conservative think tank,

the Menzies Research Centre the Menzies Research Centre has been holding its roundtable in Melbourne discussing ways to

tagle the cries is. Tony Abbott has used his new anti-dumping policy. He

says the Coalition Government

would reverse the onus of proof, forcing foreign companies suspected of dropping chaech imports onto the

Australian market to prove

they're not doing it? We

support a competitive, open market economy

businesses are competing on a genuinely level playing field and dumping distorts the

marketplace and it makes it

much harder for Australian businesses to businesses to compete fairly. Well, Andrew ab ber

Crombie is a businessman who

founded leasing and finance

company flex group. He joins me now. Fleks grup. He joins me

now Flexigroup. Hi, Tim. This idea of idea of changing the law,

changing the burden of proof changing the burden of proof so

that a business suss specked of

getting goods too cheaply has

to prove that they are to prove that they are not

dumped goods, that that turns on its head World Trade

Organisation rules? Well, it

actually doesn't. It's quite complicit with World Trade

Organisation requirements. The reverse burden of proof is fairly obviously a fairly obviously a good thing

for Australia in the sense that

dumping costs Australian businesses their very existence, costs Australians

their jobs. Essentially the

proposal is, if you like to use

a sophisticated metaphor, like blocking a punch. If you're

just going to stand there and

let Australia be the dumping

ground for below-cost goods manufactured overseas, I would

simply call this a defensive move. Chris burg of the Tim is substituting for him. He

says the Opposition Leader is now close to retaliatory protectionism. Dow

get a sense of that, that this anti-dumping anti-dumping legislation is a back door kind of sentiment? No, I don't. The

question that has to be asked

why would you permit dumping?

There is no answer to that

unless you want to ruin the Australian economy. What other

countries have this reverse

onus of proof? It is not a

question of who has it and who has not. We're choosing to do

it. It's part of Tony's policy

and it is a good policy, action of others. Would other

trading partners surely not

point out the fact that if we

go it alone on this, that that

creates immediately protectionist environment for Australia? Well, that remains

to be seen, but as I said it's

not protectionist. To defend yourself

yourself against dumping is not

protection in the classical tariff-orientated kind of

complex. So I don't see a

problem. I was just going to

make the point that it's only

going to be a matter of

partake in dumping rather than

permit dumping in their own economy. Which of course is in the eye of the beholder. Just

moving on from that, you had a meeting today on industry assistance. What's assistance. What's the Menzies

roundtable that's different roundtable that's different to for example, the Government's

forum of manufacturing? Well, I can't comment on the Government's forum of

manufacturing in the sense that

it perhaps lacks candour but certainly the Menzies does The overwhelming response today

is that the industry does not want assistance. Hard-working

capable efficient capable efficient businesses, ace stance is tantamount

recognising that the business is unsustainable. We've got lots of track record here. Look

at the textile industry, the

car industry. Interesting point

to note is that the profits of the car industry over the last

so years or so has been roughly

equivalent to the extent to which Australian taxpayers have

subsidised those industries. the overwhelming consensus is

we don't want assistance, we

simply want reforms that create an environment that allow us to run our businesses run our businesses well. If

there was a singular regulatory reform, what would it be? You reform, what would it be? You

wouldn't know where it start.

It would probably be a level

playing field, to use

playing field, to use Tony's expression, but not in the context

context of dumping. The context of dumping. The key

words I would take out of today

would be "flexibility" and recognition that business people are better governments and that the

Government should back off. Flexibility is all about

recognition that tariffs and

protection in the long run

simply don't work because if

they prevail, then it means that the that the business is not fundamentally sound. So flexibility and being left alone by government I think

would probably be the key. Are

you happy that the Coalition is

being strident enough on

industrial relations, for example? Certainly Peter Reith

and others suggest that there

is not enough going on? Well,

the situation is that the Government are going to accuse

Tony and the Coalition of bringing back WorkChoices. bringing back WorkChoices. It doesn't matter what they doesn't matter what they do. They've already whole policy. It is a fear

campaign and it's fairly clear

how it will operate. The answer

to the question is that we need

to get an environment that

gives Australian workers and Australian businesses

flexibility to cooperate and

work with one another without big brother standing out the

back, but it will be any

reforms, of course, will be context of analysing and adjusting the existing

legislation under the Fair legislation under the Fair Work

Act. Andrew, Tim Wilson here.

I've got a quick I've got a quick question. I couldn't disagree with you more

on the anti-dumping on the anti-dumping policy because the current desire because the current desire of

the anti-dumping policy is about proving material injury to an industry. Reversing the

onus of proof onus of proof basically says unless there is no impact at

all on a company that there is

no justification for imposing

some sort of anti-dumping measure, thing before about a level

playing field. The whole point of of trade policy is that there

actually isn't - a free market

trade policy is trade policy is that there isn't such thing as a level

playing field. Every playing field. Every country takes advantage of their

unleveled position to grow. If

you start to impose tariff or

non-tariff trade barriers you

get escalation very quickly as

was outlined in the type of

thing like an anti-dumping measure. How do that? You've acknowledged that it's subjective, Tim and it is

subjective and we all know

there is a multitude of different ways in which so-called free trade so-called free trade can be prohibited. Homeland security,

Customs procedures, the works

burger. Australia has an

extremely clean record. To face

up to the rest of the world and

say here is the story guys, we think this is dumping. Reverse

burden of proof, show us why burden of proof, show us why it isn't. You are selling your

goods for below cost. introduce subjective measures under a reverse burden of

proof. Really it raises the

question with respect to the

burden of proof. I guess in the end the end the test is whether those.. Ate Bess Australia

protecting itself. Whether

those issues are brought up at WTO future disputes. WTO future disputes. Andrew ab-Crombie thank you You're welcome. The Rebekah Brooks resigned from the company in

disgrace at the height of the

phone hacking scandal and after

the newspaper itself was closed

down, but it seems she is still

a favourite of Rupert Murdoch because she has reportedly received a very nice severance package indeed. package indeed. It includes

$2.6 million in cash, a

chauffeur-driven limo and use of a Central London office.

Antony, what do you get if you

have to resign in disgrace? Hopefully a lot disgrace? Hopefully a lot more

than that. This is a classic

case of a paying off an algd crook to try

and either stay quiet or do something else. Are you saying this is this is buying silence? Well,

Brookes was seen as one of Rupert's children Rupert's children he never had. Obviously they're very close

which - that's not a crime which - that's not a crime in itself but this itself but this organisation has been shown time and time

again to be an organisation again to be an organisation run

by crooks. Not exactly a secret

saying. Openly that's the case.

When someone like this does

this it only shows yet again

that the Murdoch empire needs

to be somehow found to be in checkers. If they will happen over and over. The

shareholders won't be very happy with this eight. This is

a lot of money for an

organisation that is

issues in terms of credibility.

Yes, criminality pays. Rupert

Murdoch has had plenty of children. He didn't children. He didn't need Rebekah Brooks necessarily. Sue

Cato, you see plenty of failed organisations reward executives

with golden handshakes. Is this any different? It's really hard to defend the office in the

city and the car. I think rooks - - clearly, Must be a nice

car If you remember the Murdoch family threw their body in

front of her and tried to

protect her. Clearly she is somebody who is important, but

the other thing to remember is

she has been with the business for 20 years so it's just

possible that the 2.6 is along

the terms of the contract. May

well be Seems a lot to most well be Seems a lot to most people. She certainly is a special one in that empire.

That is all for 'The Drum'

today. Thanks to the panel -

Sue Cato, Tim Wilson, Antony

Loewenstein and Stephen Long. You can You can check out the website

at I will

see you again tomorrow

afternoon. Closed Captions by CSI.