Title

ABC News 24 6pm News

Database

Electronic Media Monitoring Service 

Date

17-07-2017 05:59 PM

Source

ABC News 24

Parl No.

 

Channel Name

ABC News 24

Start

17-07-2017 05:59 PM

Abstract

 
End

17-07-2017 05:59 PM

Cover date

2017-07-17 17:59:00

Citation Id

720305

Enrichment

 
Reporter

 

Speaker

 

URL

Open Item 

Parent Program URL

 

Text online

No

Media Deleted

False

System Id

emms/emms/720305

Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document


ABC News 24 6pm News -

View in ParlView

(generated from captions) This program is not captioned.

This program is not captioned.

This program is not captioned.

This program is live captioned by Ericsson Access Services. Hello, welcome to The Drum. Coming up: Will bringing in the military lead to better outcomes in domestic terror situations? AFL executives resign over affairs. When does a workplace romance become a problem? And Dr Who finally incarnated as a woman. What is all the fuss about?

What is all the fuss about?
Joining me on the panel, columnist at The Guardian, Van Badham. Nice to meet you. GP Caroline West, good to see you, doctor. And in Canberra, former Federal Liberal leader John Hewson. And in Melbourne, Josh Bornstein from Maurice Blackburn lawyers. Thanks for being with us again. Good evening. And you can join us on Twitter. And on Facebook. If you were taken hostage by a terrorist in an Australian city or town, who would you want to kick down the door and rescue you? Specialist state police or highly trained special forces soldiers? In the wake of the Lindt cafe siege in which NSW Police acknowledged they should have gone in earlier to rescue hostages, two of whom died in the incident, families of the victims said they felt let down by police. My image of the siege will always be of those police in full tactical gear surrounding the cafe, willing to put their lives on the line to go in, the hostages inside, Tori and Katrina being so brave in all the things they did during the day, but then this other image of these leaders, of the police force, making all these mistakes. And letting everyone down. Well, now, the Federal Government is giving the defence force more power to help local police deal with terrorist situations,s specially protracted ones. To date state and federal governments had to prove they'd exhausted their ability to defend themselves before they called in the ADF. Mr Turnbull says that needs to be streamlined. Let me be very clear. State and territory police are and will remain the primary responders to any terrorist attack. We're going to streamline the legislative process for the call-out of the ADF under the Defence Act to provide more flexibility for the states and territories to request defence assistance without going into the legalities of it, it is a very cumbersome process at the moment. John Hewson, we will start with you. Given the NSW Police repeatedly said in the Lindt siege they had the situation under control, when it was clear later that they did not, is it sensible to leave it to a state and territory Police Commissioner or a Premier or chief minister to come out in middle of a siege and say, we tried our best, but it's too much for us? Yeah, look, I think if you step back a bit, I think most people would have imagined that they would have had these powers anyway and they would have been used to get the most effective response in any circumstance. I think most people would learn that in fact the only reason the defence force wasn't brought in in the Lindt case is that the NSW Police didn't ask for it. That's not about the cumbersome nature of the process, but they didn't ask. It was their choice. If it is still going to, despite the streamlining of the process, still be their choice, I don't know whether we will necessarily get a better outcome. So, you know, the Prime Minister says he's trying to get rid of the red tape and the gum that presprents state and territory authorities making this kind of call -- prevents state and territory authorities making this kind of call out. Is he solving the same problem? It wasn't the red tape and the gum in the Lindt case. It was the fact they decided they didn't need to call them in. That was a bad call as we saw in terms of the subsequent evidence. I can understand that the process does need to be streamlined. Our federation is full of all these inefficiencies, but having said that, it's still going to come back to the individuals involved, isn't it? And whether the processes are there or not n the end, unless there's someway they can be brought in automatically in automatically, it will still be decision. Van Badham, the opposition says in in NSWTAG, the tactical assault group, rehearsed for the Lindt cafe but they weren't allowed to rescue them because the NSW Police thought they had the situation under control. Do you think you can rely on local police to know when they're out of their depth? I think we really have to have confidence in the police. We have to have confidence in policing. I think we need to be very honest about what's going on here politically and what's going on here practically. What is going on here practically is that what we've identified as terrorism incidents in Australia, for example, the Frankston shooter, obviously the Lindt cafe siege and the murder of Curtis Cheng, you were looking at individuals who were not part of global terrorist networks who may have claimed they were jihadis but the guy in Frankston said he was doing it in the name of al-Qaeda and ISIS, who orgations that hate each other. -- organisations that hate each other. You're not looking at the warfare guerrilla actions overseas. In the case of Monis and the guy in Frankston... Brighton, I think. Brighton, sorry, guys who had extensive histories of domestic violence, known to police. There was invererns around substance misuse from one guy -- inference around substance misuse from one guy. We have special ways of dealing with violence that breaks out in these situations. Practically we're not looking at situation wheres the military need to be involved. -- where the military need to be In the Lindt cafe a terrible tragedy, two people died, but it could have been a catastrophe where 20 died. That could have been out of control. Now let's looking at the military, a citizen-intensive environment, not a war zone, not a conflict zone, they're empowered with life or death decisions in areas out of their expertise. The whole framework around the idea of militarising police response to these issues is massively disproportionate. We're talking about terrorism not because there is a threat, but as usual, Malcolm Turnbull is in the polls again. Josh Bornstein, can I come to you. If there is a hostage situation - there are threats to kill, there is a terrorist affiliation, which, I mean, might suggest that the person has a criminal background, that tends to go with it, or that they have a serious mental health issue, should the authorities ever negotiate if there's a protracted dispute or is there a point at which the public expects them to "shoot to kill"? I don't think we have a ready-made formulaic answer. In the Lindt cafe situation I think criticisms have been legitimately made about the failure to go in much earlier. The outcome was tragic and as Van said could have been much more tragic. Over and above this debate, I loathe and get extremely distressed just watching some of the terrorist incidents that have occurred in other parts of the world, the Middle East, and in Europe, France, and the UK, and would hate to think anything like that could happen here. I don't particularly have a difficulty in different agencies pulling their resources and hopefully their specialisation to try to get the best outcome in those dreadful situations if they are to ever recur. The Prime Minister today said, look at what happened in London, the Borough Markets, you had unarmed police at the first responders, armed police followed and the situation was resolved within 8 minutes. You can't get the tactical assault group of the Australian military into, you know, Brisbane, Melbourne, Sydney or Perth where they're based, that quickly. What is the expectation of the public, do you think, that the military does have a role when these things dig in? I can understand this whole move towards streamlining the process and improving that collaboration. The collaboration between the police and the ADF. I think there is an expectation from the public there will be a quick response. I guess my question around this arises around, when do you decide when something is terrorism and when it is an incident related to a sole perpetrator under the influence of drugs, alcohol or a context of domestic violence or mental illness? When do you decide to come in there? Is that the sort of thing the military would have the power to step into and have the nuanced ability to be able to negotiate? I guess a lot of the specialist squads have the ability to negotiate in a difficult situation and it's not always black and white. You're dealing with human behaviour and anticipating what will happen next. Sometimes you need a response that has that nuance. It's complicated. Dr Hewson, it seems to be that the assumption behind this - you may not agree - but the assumption behind this seems to be if you have a terrorist situation, unlike a domestic violence situation or hostage taking for other reasons, you need this additional force and that somehow you need the possibility of not taking the container and negotiate path all the way through but a military approach to eliminate the threat. Is that a fair expectation we should have? Does that sound reasonable to you? I think there is an expectation along those lines but it's hard to generalise and have a formula for all circumstances. If it was a clear-cut case of a terrorist action and you know, a large scale terrorist action, I think the people would expect you to move quickly and decisively, as was the case with London Bridge. Whoever did it would have wanted an immediate response. You can't have a preconceived formula, I don't think. One of the ideas the Government was talking about was embedding some ADF in the police force in a training session, early stages, before these events occur. Maybe there's merit in that, and probably that doesn't happen now either because of this government red tape. You know, it's a question, I think, the ebbing spec tags is that you will -- expectation is that you will move quickly with the most effective force you can muster. How you do that with the nature of our federation is a difficult choice. And to you, Van Badham, one of the tactical force officers involved in shooting Monis gave evidence at the hearing saying, we hardly shoot anybody. He later agreed that we are almost never called upon to use our weapons. So if the policy of the police force is to contain and negotiate, and when that fails, the people who are being asked to discharge their weapons hardly ever do so, is there an argue tment that you're better off to use a tactical assault group who are very well trained and experienced at using their weapons? People who are experienced at using their weapons are not necessarily people experienced in dealing with a civil problem, which is what the incident... They're a counter terrorism group within the SAS. They are, but I think we have to be very cautious of not projecting the situations in other countries as speculations on what happens here. We're an extremely safe country. These incidents are few and far between. They have been very isolated. There is no context that would inform that kind of situation. Realistically, we're having a thoroughly theoretical discussion and I get back to the point that I think this is the kind of discussion the Prime Minister loves to have, because it's about taking actions on problems that don't as yet exist. There's talk, John Hewson, of a super Ministry of Homeland security to be headed by Peter Dutton, to take in the AFP, ASIO, the Border Force, does that make us safer or is that about internal Liberal politics? Yes, probably both. But I am not a great supporter of the super ministry simply because there are fundamental differences in culture between the Federal Police and ASIO and how you can imagine to emesh them under one head, one minister, doesn't make sense to me. A lot of other countries have homeland security in one form or another. I don't think it makes sense in our case. I think that if you were to do it you would want to be careful who you put in charge of it. Most people have reservations about Dutton being that person. Do you have those reservations? Absolutely. That's why I mentioned it. Why do you have those reservations? I think he projects the wrong sort of image. He was tough on border security and he's had some issues in the immigration area and misrepresentation in relation to what happened on Manus and all that sort of thing. I think he's done a lot to destroy the confidence of the people in his ability to do a job like that. I don't think, what's the argument for putting together - an efficiency argument? I don't imagine you can easily put these various bodies together under one head and have it as effective operation. I think the way it's done now is probably as good as it can be. You're watching The Drum. Moving on: Should people have to resign for having workplace affairs? The AFL thinks so, accepting the resignation of two executives over consensual affairs with women at work. The AFL's Chief Executive described the affairs as inappropriate. I expect my executives are role models and set a standard of behaviour for the organisation. They are judged, as they should be, to a I higher standard. The journey we're on to more equal and respectful workplaces must be more than just two words. It must be backed up with action, and with change. Affairs between those in senior positions almost always men and younger women are nothing new, but now they've started to cost senior executives a fair bit of money. QBE boss John Neale had to forfeit more than $500,000 in his bonus after the board got wind of his affair with his secretary. Now these two AFL executives have lost their high-paying jobs. When should someone resign for an office affair? Or is that over the top? Now, Josh Bornstein, you've come out and said that this is over the top, what the AFL has done. If you can't control your carnal urges at work, Josh, isn't it reasonable to expect you will get the sack? We need to go back a few steps from the AFL and our carnal urges to what's really going on here. For the last decade or more we've seen a collapse in the divide between our public lives and our private lives. I think in employment law terms that's led to very dramatic and damaging outcomes for employees who have lost their jobs for things that have nothing really much to do with the performance of their work. In this case, according to the AFL, these were high-performing employees. But what is driving these situations is a media cycle, tabloid journalism, the social media aggressive cycle of shaming people and organisations and then in come the brand managers. And the AFL exercise for me is nothing to do with setting new standards for workplace behaviour, but is all about managing branld. The -- brand. The issue of the affairs had been, the stuff of tabloid news coverage, social media, and in the AFL, they step in and sacrifice two of their best performers. You see no difficulty in the workplace with these two very senior men having affairs in the workplace with two very, more junior women. You see no difficulty, no potential for conflict or difficulty in the workplace with that at all? People meet one another in workplaces, become friends in workplaces and occasionally have relationships in workplaces. That will continue and should continue into the future. Can you imagine trying to impose a standard like that on the public sector? Or Telstra? Or the Commonwealth Bank where there might be 30,000 staff. There is no suggestion in the AFL case of any untoward behaviour, not talking about workplace bullying, not talking about sexual harassment. There's been no complaints from the women involved. We're talking in one case as I understand it, a manager in his 30s and a woman in her mid20s. So there is no suggestion of any other difficult circumstances which have led to this decision, but what the whole episode smacks of, the way in which the press coverage and the press conferences conducted by the AFL and the public apologies, this is a public relations-driven strategy about managing the AFL brand and it is very damaging in the employment atmosphere. Is expecting 24/7 good behaviour reasonable of leaders of an industry group, a corporate situation? A political class? Or is it, as Josh suggests, expecting your employees to effectively be brand managers for you when you're not paying them? I don't think you would expect anyone to be a brand manager 24/7. What's been interesting about this case is how it's polarised the community. I guess it's had so much oxygen because it was brought into play, can you have a relationship at the office? I think the answer is yes, of course, but it's about disclosure and it's about the context in which that relationship arises. It's all hierachy. I think that putting aside the AFL, there are clear guidelines that many large corporations now have in place about disclosing your relationships. That's for the valid reason that some relationships can be starting off on an unequal footing. There can be conflicts of interest that potentially arise when a relationship goes wrong. In this case perhaps it was consensual adults and I guess there's scrutiny that they've received and it's been awful. I feel very sorry for everyone involved, because I think it's been very unfairly handled. But the underlying question is about creating a workplace that is safe. John Hewson, the point the AFL made about expecting a higher standard from leaders. When you were the Opposition Leader, the tabloid media had a field day with the details of how and when your first marriage ended. I mean, do you think that kind of scrutiny is warranted for political leaders, for industry and corporate leaders? Look, I think in public life you come to expect it. You do live in a goldfish bowl. Whatever happens you live with. And then you handle it the best you can. I've never had any concern about personal relationships unless they compromise the person in the capacity to do the job, the performance and so on. In this case, when I first heard about it, I thought there must be more evidence of bad behaviour, because against the background, as Josh has been saying, of an image that the AFL has been way out in front of building, in terms of attitudes to women, say compared to the NRL, I think they felt that brand was damaged significantly. But I suspected that maybe there was more to this, more bad behaviour than just a relationship, which OK, maybe should have been declared, transparent, but did it compromise their capacity to do the job? That's where I would have come from. Do you think that ought to be the test? I would have thought the test for when and when you left your first wife, or whatever, it would have to in my terms as a journalist, meet a public interest test. Is the public interest served? What does it tell us about Dr Hewson as a potential Prime Minister. Can I draw a line or is it tabloid titter? Where do you come down on that, do you think it claimed to have a bearing or you should have been held to higher moral standards than ordinary more talls? -- mortals? I thought it was largely irrelevant and the detail was never addressed. I didn't feel that I needs to do that in those circumstances. I understood what was happening. The Labor Party were looking for anything they could get on Hewson to damage his credibility. Fair enough. I mean, that's the price you pay for being in public life. You live wit and handle it the best you can and move on. Did you think it was fair? I thought it was unfair at the time. The more I fed it, the more it would run. Van Badham, the Chief Executive of the AFL said these two men are high quality people. He said they were unbeliefable executives, he said the industry is forgiving and they may get another chance. The names of the young women involved has also been widely reported. They may become notorious. Do you think they will go on to have good, strong careers in the industry? Look, from what we understand about the way these things play out, these are established media tropes that involve slut shaming women. That's what happened. Why is this a story? What is the story here? What, that, you know, people meet one another in workplace contexts and have affairs. That's not a story, that's the history of humanity. Why the names of these women have been dragged through the media? This is humiliating, and it's disastrous as well it sets up... It is more disastrous for the women than men? Of course. And the families of these men who may have known what was going on or who may have not and have been roped into public life as private citizens negotiating the context of their own relationships. This is a disgusting thing to do to private citizens. I don't see AFL executives' personal lives as being in the public interest. Can I put it to you on this point, Josh. If you know this is how the world works. You know that the women will pay a higher price for what Van Badham called the "slut-shaming" that has gone on and it may have a Morwenna disastrous effect on their careers than the men's. If the men have decades of knowledge of how industry works, does that represent an exploitation in the first instance? It's difficult to make those judgements with the very little information we have at the moment. Even if there was a power inbalance and there are these appearances of exploitation, these are both adults. They're not doing anything illegal. They're not doing anything that, other than perhaps being men who are married, we can make some moral judgements about that. It's highly problematic to then put this as a big public relations exercise and effectively sack people in that situation. It sets a ridiculous standard that politicians can't live up to, and if surgeons had the same standard we wouldn't have anyone operating in this country. If we're looking at -- in this country. If you' we're looking at exploitation, it's for the women involved, their names dragged through the relationship, than having the consensual relationships with the men. To a much less difficult subject. Dr Who's longevity comes from the character's ability to regenerate. The doctor has done so, regenerating 11 times with new actors through the series' 50-year history. Next season in its new iteration, the Time Lord will become a woman played by actress Jodie Whittaker, a female Dr Who. It was arguably possible at any time, but this year the B BBC decided it really is time . It's excited especially female fans and derided as a ratings killer by others, generally male. How are you coping with the news? I'm excited. Dr Who is as old as I am. I'm really excited to see a woman fill the role. We've got equal number of women graduates coming through. I'm hoping that perhaps the leadership style will be different. Maybe she will negotiate with the Daleks. John Hewson, do you like the idea of the character being a woman, what about James Bond? Glenda Jackson did Lea, wouldn't that have been something. I think it's been coming. If you go back in the Dr Who shows, 2005, they started to hint in this direction. I don't think gender matters. It's the writing that matters. We've had good and bad periods of writing. Are you a fan? Do you speak from some knowledge? When it started, you know, it's getting boring. And then the most recent episode has been exciting. It's the writing, not the gender. Now, Josh, I have to ask you, when we were speaking before, how far can behaviour go with this female? If she starts pashing the Daleks, are you comfortable with that Josh? At the moment the President of France is married to his former schoolteacher and their relationship started while he was at school. So bring on the female Dr Who, and may she go and behave gracefully and disgracefully as the script writer sees fit. Van Badham, is it possible these days to give gender the slip, for gender to be irrelevant? No, gender is always relevant. We make social evaluations in gender terms. The experience of being a woman is very different to that of being a man. A lot less privileged. And I think having a female Dr Who is massively overdue. I look forward to the day we have a person of colour be Dr Who. I find it extraordinary over 50 years you have a Time Lord, an interdimensional being who can generate in any capacity, consistently a white middle-class man. And for me, part of the pleasure of not only seeing a female represent the role, which will mean everything to young girls watching that show who, who love that show, who see their capacity for heroism reflected in that woman. For me a lot of the pleasure is watching the screaming man babies on the internet lose their minds that this interdimensional double-hearted being is being played by a woman. That, for me, is part of the whole entertainment prospect of the new season. It's entertaining. Last year when they redid Ghostbusters and everyone panicked. We can't have women. Charlize Theron in Mad Max. Get used to it lads. Dr Hewson, you're the resident expert. The actress involved said there's nothing to fear. What on earth would there be to fear from a female Dr Who? I think she fears the magnitude of the opportunity, it's fantastic. Could you imagine a Jane Bond? I'm worried that Wonder Woman would be a man. A whole show to itself. Thank you. That's it for The Drum. Thanks to Van Badham, Caroline West, John Hewson, and Josh Bornstein. I will be back tomorrow. Good night. This program is live captioned by Ericsson Access Services.

This program is not captioned.