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.
Lateline (Early) -

View in ParlView

(generated from captions) This program is live captioned by Ericsson Access Services.

Good evening, tonight - Liberal rising star and front bencher Angus Taylor calls on PM Turnbull to act urgently on party reform.The PM wants to see a base, I'm confident these changes should and will happen in time and it needs to be relatively quickly. We can't wait for this.That interview with Angus Taylor is coming up but first Senator Sam Dastyari has resigned from Labor's front bench after a week of mounting pressure over his dealings with the Chinese company. The Coalition is now turning the heat on Bill Shorten who just yesterday insisted Senator Dastyari deserved a second chance. Our political correspondent David Lipson joins us from Canberra. David, yesterday at that excruciating press conference, Sam Dastyari was adamant he wasn't going to step down nor had he been asked to. What changed? Well, it really was that train wreck of a press conference yesterday that was the catalyst for Sam Dastyari. 25 minutes almost, as you mentioned. He didn't answer either of the key questions. Number one, why he felt it was OK to ask a Chinese-linked company to pay his personal expenses and number 2, possibly more damaging, the fact he couldn't deny the reports that he had deviated significantly from the Government's official position and his own party's official position on the security issue of the South China Sea. And that deviation brought he much closer to China's position on that. So it seems, I'm told, not long after that news conference, he knew he was in trouble, but it wasn't until late this afternoon that he actually called Bill Shorten about 5:00 this afternoon and offered his resignation. Then he called a news conference, here's some of what he had to say.This has been a difficult week and this afternoon I've made a difficult decision. I've never been afraid of the spotlight but in the past week it's clear that the ongoing examination of my behaviour is taking attention away from bigger issues facing Australia and Australians. I want to thank my leader, Bill Shorten, for his incredible support. The Labor Party owes me nothing and I owe the Labor Party everything. And I look forward to serving a Labor Government in the near future in whatever capacity I can. Thank you.David, how's the Labor Party feeling about the way this episode has played out?Well, overwhelmingly from Labor MPs and senators that I've spoken to this evening, the feeling is that Sam Dastyari has done the right thing by stepping down from the front bench at this time. Of course he's going to stay in Parliament. But there is some disappointment at the way this has played out over the past week. Sam Dastyari, a former NSW secretary of the Labor branch of NSW, does have some enemies and some of them are taking a little bit of delight this evening. But it's more disappointment at what one Labor MP described as a feeling that the Government was on the ropes at the end of last week, not so much anymore. Bill Shorten tonight in a statement has... Now he's paying a heavy price. It's the measure of the man that he can stand up, admit he got it wrong and accept the consequences. Sam is a young bloke with a bright future ahead of him, he has a lot more to offer Labor and Australia. That seems to suggest that after some time in the wilderness, Sam Dastyari may end up back on Labor's front bench. It's worth also revisiting the change in tone of Bill Shorten's rhetoric over the past few days from last Friday until yesterday. Have a look. Senator Dastyari's learnt a very valuable lesson. He did disclose the payment and now he's contacted the Department of Finance about how he can repay it. That's a very important lesson to be learned. I've just said to him that he shouldn't have done it and he said he won't do it again. I have severely counselled him. I've made it crystal clear I don't expect to see this happen again.David, presumably the Government is not going to let this go?No, they're not. They will go hard after Sam Dastyari and look, there is a little bit of a problem for Bill Shorten in that just yesterday, as you mentioned, he said that Sam Dastyari deserves a second chance. But how much paint will Bill Shorten lose over this? Probably not a whole lot but the Coalition, no doubt, will push this as far as they possibly can and we saw the start of that this evening on 7:30 with the Treasurer Scott Morrison, have a look.Who would have thought that Sam Dastyari had higher standards than Bill Shorten. Sam Darr Dastyari has taken the decision, it was Bill Shorten who was continuing to defend him. There's no new information, all of that was clear. Sam has taken that decision today and Bill Shorten was nowhere to be seen. I think that's disappointing because Bill Shorten should have had this sorted days ago because the facts of this matter were uncontested.So David, this issue has been the catalyst of a broader conversation about donations renorm, - reform, where is that likely to end up, do you think? I think the Government will take some action on this issue, possibly as early as Monday when Parliament returns. I don't think the Government will g - go as far as Labor is demanding, that is a ban on foreign donations, or real restrictions on donations. But there may be more transparency and in particular, more realtime transparency. That is something that both the major parties seem to agree on at this point. And perhaps also a further review of the broader donations system. Whether that will be enough to satisfy the public, though, which is now hyper aware, at least in part of what is going on in terms of political donations, we will see.David Lipson, thanks so much.

The NSW division of the Liberal Party is undemocratic, riven with self-interested powerbrokers who are putting the very future of the party at risk. This unequivocal assessment was delivered in a speech by Government front bencher Angus Taylor. Considered a rising star in the government, he came to close to losing his seat before the election. Similar concerns were voiced last month by fellow NSW MP and former PM Tony Abbott who warned the party was becoming smaller, less representative and easily controlled by factional war lords. Today, John Howard and another former NSW PM joined the chorus of discontent. Well I share his analysis about the need to alter particularly the preselection system. There is a mounting view amongst Liberals and Liberal supporters in Sydney that when it comes to preselections in safe Liberal seats the Liberal Party is near to a closed shop. And for a party that has rightly, in my view, campaigned hard against closed shops in the industrial relations arena, we should not allow it to continue. And we continued that conversation when Angus Taylor joined me here in the studio earlier. Angus Taylor welcome to Lateline.Thanks for having me.Can you explain for our audience what you meant last night when you talked about a democracy deficit within the NSW division of the Liberal Party?Emma, what we're seeing all around the world now is political parties realising that they need to reconnect with their members, with the base, and with the voters more generally. And that means giving their members more power. It means giving them say over who represents them, giving them say over the officials in their organisation. And even in Australia we're seeing significant moves in this direction in the Liberal Party but we haven't seen those shifts in NSW. So what I'm arguing is it's time. We have a membership in NSW that deserves more power, more say in how the party works and in who represents them and we have been too slow in making that change, despite recommendations from many people, many reports, many senior members of the party that we need to change. You also stated that no-one can seriously argue that current settings strongly encourage recruitment of good Liberals, why not?Well, because what we have is, as I say, too much centralisation of power in the hands of relatively few and what it means is that there isn't the encouragement to go out and recruit, get more members, more people to get out and barrack for us. Look, when you're a Member of Parliament, you want the members of your party barracking for you out in the community every day, every day, and right now we don't have enough of that. We need more of it. We saw it at the last federal election that we need more of this. The Labor Party has a very different model. They're very highly centralised and I think that's a bad thing but it does mean that they can draw on union resources in a way that we can't. We require - we depend on being able to energise and invigorate our membership base and we need a structure that can do that.And in fact you talked about the attempts you made to set up a branch in Cowra and how frustrated you were in those efforts?Yes, and that's an example of what we're seeing. I mean it is very difficult under the current structure to open branchs and,ing of course, that's exactly the opposite of what you want in a political party. You want more members, you want more branchs, you want more supporters and I think if we can put power back in the hands of the members, so every member gets a vote for their local candidate, this is the essential thing and the essential point I'm arguing. We want every member to have a vote in who is representing them and we have freedom of allowing new members into the party as long as they reside in that electorate. These are pretty simple changes. The Victorians have put these changes in a number of years ago and they've had a large number of very, very good MPs and senators into the Parliament since those changes. It works, we've seen it in Victoria. John Howard today said essentially he was in furious agreement with you. He mentioned that safe Liberal seats at the moment, it's near a closed shop. Who's responsible for that?Well, the system's responsible for it. That's the point. We have a system that allows power to be centralised so that the shop, the drawbridge can be brought up.But that must be - it must come down to individuals?Well I don't think it does. I mean systems - organisations drive behaviour. We behave in a particular way -About people there who are driving that system that's driving the behaviour?But we behave in a particular way because our organisation motivates us to do it. If you have the wrong settings in an organisation, then good people are encouraged to behave in the wrong way. And, you know, that's what we see when we have an organisation put the wrong way. Look, many people, many of your viewers out there will have been in organisations where they're very frustrated because they're trying to do the right thing and that particular organisation is stopping them for some reason. Most of us understand that situation. That's what we've got here in the NSW Liberal Party.John Ruddock quit his membership last year after Malcolm Turnbull took over the leadership. This morning he said Mr Turnbull was a strident campaigner against democratic reform in the Liberal Party.I'm not sure that that's right. I don't think that is right. I tell you what, though, I do know is that the PM, Malcolm Turnbull, wants to see an energised and a motivated membership base in NSW. He wants that. We all want that. And if that's the objective, my point is democratic reform, ie that is giving more power to the membership base, the ability to vote for their local representatives, is the solution to that problem.But of course to effect change you need to acknowledge there's a problem and you will recall a speech that Malcolm Turnbull gave in October last year, you were in the audience and I'm fairly certain you were one of the people who responded with a bit of a chuckle when he said, and let's remind our viewers of it. We're not run by factions, we're not run by...(LAUGHTER) You may, you may, you may dispute that, but I have to tell you from experience, we are not run by factions. Norle are we run by big business or by deals in back rooms. It appears he doesn't think you're run by factions at all.My point is this is not about factions. If you have what the Labor Party has had for a long while, a situation where you have a lot of power in the hands of a few, the risk is it's mis used. Now, that is a problem, independent of who's in control, all this talk about factions and so on, that is a problem in and of itself and as Liberals, as conservatives, we believe in decentralising power, we believe in the wisdom of crowds and grass roots.But there are factions, right?In any organisations there's groupings of people who work to further their interests.And grouping of people are factions in your party?I'm not going to get into a semantic argument with you. The point that I just made is to make change you have to acknowledge first there's a problem.And the point I would make is that the problem is that there is too much centralisation of power. There's too much power in the hands of a few and that risks it being mis used and used for that groups, those people's purposes, rather than the broader purposes of the party, and importantly the nation. Let's face it, a strong Australia depends on a strong Liberal Party.John Howard said it would take the will of the PM and the Premier in NSW to band together to really effect some reform. Are you confident that will happen?Well, the Premier's already said that he will have a plebiscite, which is giving everybody a vote in the preselection in his seat before the next State election. So that is a big symbolic step forward. That is his way of saying "I think this is an important change." And the one thing I know about Malcolm Turnbull is he wants, as I said, he wants an energised and invigorated membership base in NSW.Has he indicated to you that he will help drive this reform? He has indicated to everybody, I think, quite publicly, that he wants to see an energetic Liberal Party in NSW. That's why I'm confident that with the support of people like the people we've been talking about, John Howard, Arthur Sinodinos has made it clear what his views are on this, Mike Baird and others, I'm confident that these changes should and will happen in time and it needs to be relatively quickly. We can't wait for this. We do need now a membership base who are really out there barracking for us.And a couple of quit things we'll whip around. Donations, what sort of reform would you like to see in light of what's emerged in the past week or so?I'm a big believer that if dis - disclosures happen then the right consequences flow. And it's exactly what we're seeing with this debate now. Sam Dastyari made a disclosure about receiving money for travel and legal purposes from a Chinese business person and the debate has followed. He's been made accountable for receiving that money and most importantly, for the potential link between receiving that money and his subsequent behaviour. That's why transparency matters. I am a big believer that transparency -Do we have to ban foreign donations?I think transparency is the key. I think there are big administrative difficulties we're trying to impose a rule where all foreign donations are banned. But what I do think is important is that these things are transparent and that then we can look at the link between somebody's - or potential link between someone's behaviour and any donation received and that's exactly the debate we're having around Sam Dastyari at the moment and it's the right debate.Angus Taylor, thanks for your time.Thank you, Emma.

It was once thought to affect only a small percentage of children and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD is now one of the most chronic conditions in children the world over. In America more than 1 in 7 children are diagnosed with ADHD, 3 times some experts believe is the real figure and that number is rising. So how is it that so many kids are being diagnosed for a psychiatric condition they don't have? New York Times journalist Alan Schwarz attempts to answer that question in his book, ADH Nation: Children, Doctors Big Pharma and the Making of an American Ep dimmic. He joins me now from New York. Thank you for joining us.It's my pleasure.Can I start by asking you to tell us the story of Richard Fee, the teenager you credit as having made the writing of this book possible?Well, Richard Fee was a college graduate in North Carolina here in the US, in I guess it was around 2011 or '12 and he wanted to go to medical school. He felt as if studying for medical school exams required some extra energy and focus and instead of coffee and instead of caffeine pills, he knew, because in colleges across the US and even high schools, it's known that if you use and take the drug Concerta or Vivance or one of the other drugs prescribed for ADA - ADHD he could concentrate better. He went to a doctor, faked ADHD symptoms which is not that hard to do, got his prescription and unfortunately he became quite addicted to the medication, which can happen, particularly when it's abused because he took it and then he took more and then he liked it a lot, and he started, unfortunately, going down a psychiatric path that can happen when you abuse these medications. And the problem, well, well beyond this one fellow's downfall, is that his experience in the ADHD system that exists here in the US and increasingly elsewhere, is you have doctors who are diagnosing without paying attention, you had doctors who were refilling prescriptions without noticing the signs of abuse and addiction that were taking place in him, and all sorts of other situations that evidenced how poorly ADHD is sometimes handled here in the US and I think that Australia is starting to have many of the same concerns. After all the research you've done for this book, is it inconceivable to you that as many as 15% of American children have indeed got a serious enough health condition that requires them to be on these sorts of powerful, daily drugs?Well, I don't think it's for me to say whether it's inconceivable or not. I understand the question, don't get me wrong. I think what I'm trying to do is I'm trying to drop this information at America's feet and say I think it's time we discussed this. If this is what we want, if we want 15% of children to be told that you have a potentially life-long, devastating brain disorder, then it's not for me to say don't do that. That's something we're all going to decide. Now, medication is not always taken. Only in about two thirds of dieg - diagnosese is medication taken. We're telling a lot of kids that something is wrong with your brain when the official def nation of ADHD here in the US which is quantified by the American Psychiatric Association says ADHD affects about 5% of children. Now we can argue, it's real or it's medicalising childhood or it's all Pharma derived. All these arguments are not really helping the situation at all. We have 3 times as many kids as is appropriate being diagnosed with this disorder, which is characterised as being a really big deal. Fine, but then why are we throwing around the label so willy-nilly. I don't understand it and I think it's time we figure out what in the world is going on here. Well one of the things that is going on that you explore is the relationship between drug companies and the people you call key opinion leaders, many of whom are highly respected scientists like Dr Joseph Bidaman a professor at Harvard Medical School. Did Harvard Medical School write papers on ADHD that were funded by big pharma?Well, Harvard University doesn't do it, but sure, I mean there are I would say 50 to 80% of the influential papers in this field, and many others in psychopharma were written by doctors that were directly or indirectly funded by drug companies. That is unfortunately the situation we have allowed to develop here in the US because the Government, the National Institute of Healthdon't provide that much funding for mental health research and it falls upon industry to do that. It has provided some good things, it's not inherently evil but what we have is so many doctors and researchers who are kind of co-opted emotionally, let alone financially, by industry that you see their work always coming out with a certain tone, which is hey, these drugs are great, we should prescribe them to anyone who shows any sign of issues. We've kind of been sold this bill of goods that these drugs, which really can help, they're not the devil's work, but do they really belong in the mouths of 1 in 5 American boys, which is basically what we are saying should happen. 1 in 5 American boys gets diagnosed with ADHD by the time he turns 18 and I've got to tell you, Australia's one of the few countries that is following the same path that the US has.Has there been any legislative reform around marketing of these drugs, given some of the posters you've actually published in your book appeal directly to parents exhorting them to give their children these drugs to make them "normal"?Well, the US joined every other country in the world, basically, every other developed country in the free world in the early 1970s, at the UN saying we will not allow controlled substances, opoids, Xanax and Valium, and stimulants like Ritalin. We will not allow these substances to be advertised to the general public because they simply won't understand the risks compared to the benefits. And so it's only the doctors. Well, in 2001 a British company that made a form of Ritalin decided, you know what? This is just a UN gentlemen's agreement, if you will. It's not against US law so we're just going to put ads for our ADHD medication in women's magazines and they did. And the FDA said this is wrong, this is bad, but they couldn't do anything about it because it wasn't against the law. And so for the entire decade of the 2000s, you had women's magazines, basically flooded with ads for Convert a, Stratera, and all sorts of other ADHD medications promising mothers literally grades that match your kids' intelligence. Or things like hey, he will take out the garbage if you give him these drugs. I'm not kidding. And things have calmed down a little bit, I think, for lots of reasons that are too complicated to get into here. But boy, did it fuel things and the US right now is the only nation in the developed world that allows the advertising to the general public of these medications, except New Zealand. But that's a more complicated issue.And closer to home for us, indeed. Alan Schwarz, unfortunately we're out of time. Thank you so much for joining Lateline tonight.My pleasure, any time.And that's all from us. You can find all of Lateline's stories and interviews as always on our website. Matt Wordsworth will be with you tomorrow and I'll see you again on Monday. Goodnight.

This program is not captioned.