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.
PM Agenda -

View in ParlView

(generated from captions) This program is live captioned by Ericsson Access Services. There you go, Brendon Grylls resuming the leadership of the WA income taxes, Terry Redman -- WA Nationals, Terry Redman gone. He is flagging some of the policy moves he wants to make, which will create a lot of headaches for Colin Barnett, the Premier seeking re-election in March. Brendon Grylls wants a $5 production levy or rental he will charge BHP and Rio Tinto, he'd like to anyway. Essentially, it is a mining tax. Remember all the Liberals, federally at least, against the mining the tax. There you go, the WA National's leader wants them. $5 a tonne. Also making it clear he wants a tougher fight with the Federal Government on the GST distribution. He abled the Turnbull Government the Pyne-Xenophon Government, in other words, strongly favouring South Australia than WA. We will have more on WA and what this will mean for the election in less than 12 months time. You are watching PM Agenda. It's 4:00pm in Canberra, 2:00pm in Perth. Our top stories this afternoon, now satellite images appear to show China building military grade aircraft hangers on the disputed islands in the South China Sea. More than a million Australians have already completed their census online apparently with millions more set to fill out their forms tonight. The Bureau of Statistics says it is dinted a up in ber of senators have stoked concerns over pricesy. We'll talk to an expert this hour about whether there are grunds for us to be worried. And brilz -- and

We begin this afternoon with a development in the South China Sea that could have serious consequences for Australia. China made it clear last month it would ignore the ruling from the International Court of Arbitration which found its actions in breach of international law. New satellite images appear to show China is ramping up its activities there. These are images collected and annualised by the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. The centre believes it shows military grade aircraft hangers, Bility -- built next to the runway. There have also been some concerning quotes in Chinese media over the last couple of days. The South China Morning Post reports a retired People's Liberation Army colonel, Yue Gang, saying we need to maintain a certain level of power in the South China Sea so we can throw a punch at any time." The Chinese media has also been reporting the PLA as having establishing regular patrols but its nuclear-capable bombers and most advarngsed fighter jets over the splatly Islands. I spoke to Peter Jennings about these most satellite images and what they tell us about the direction China is taking in the South China Sea. Peters Jennings, thank you for your time. These images have been collected and studied by the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. Are you certain about what they appear to show?Yes, this is a credible organisation that is doing analysis. I have no doubt that what they show is correct. And in the construction of aircraft hangers, I think the thing to read into that is that the Chinese are no longer just interested in visiting the islands occasionally for exercises. They're actually going to be permanently basing aircraft on these artificial islands. With the hangers giving them the ability to protect them during the typhoon season.That's an interesting point. They're different to hangers you might see at Sydney or Melbourne Airport. We're talking about military grade. Will they be able to withstand a strike from the air or sea, or about protecting them from the typhoons?I think this is all about weather protection. If you wanted to take out the islands, all you have to do is damage the 300-metre-long runway, so that's not hard.These islands, in particular, they're the Mischief Reefs, these are all in the Spratly Reef chain which President Xi said only last year when visiting the United States, they would not militarise. Is this militarising?There is no other way to look at it. They're certainly not building these hangers to protent the turtles or other -- protect the turtles or other wildlife in the region. And now they're doing what the President said they wouldn't do, which is to take this mill -- militarisation in the southern part of the sea. They've done it in the northern. It shows they're not the least bit interested in the international tribunal ruling handing down.What does this say to you about where China is at now?I think they're about 70% of the way through a longer term plan which is ultimately going to conclude with the declaration of an air defence investigation zone. Which really is a way of saying, "This is our sovereign territory and we will now control everything that flies through it and sails offence it." They are going to be able to do that by having the most strongest permanent air power in the South China Sea.And air defence identification zone -- an air defence identification zone, if that is declared, what that does mean if someone sails a ship through within 12 naud cal miles, what -- nautical miles, what will they do?It means you're doing it with the permission.If they don't have the permission inIt means they have the right to test what you're doing, tell you to leave instantly and in the worst instances to shoot the ship or the aircraft out of the sky.Does this strengthen the case for Australia to follow the United States in one of these freedom of choices exercise?We can accept this is what China is doing and that makes our trade up into north Asia and including to Japan, political hostage in terms of how China views that. Or we can take a more assertive stand, which I think we need to, and to say we do not recognise Chinese sovereignty. The way to do that is to sail a ship or fly an aircraft within the 12 nautical miles of these islands which is a way to say we don't recognise their sovereignty claims. You're saying that's the option we should take?I believe so. I think we will find ourselves in a crisis situation potentially towards the end of the year if an ADIZ is declared. We will have no-one to blame but ourselves if we resolutely denied not to do anything up until that point. Because China has given us a clear idea what they were going to do - build the ideas, make them permanently habitable and ignore international law. If we don't anything, we shouldn't be surprise if China declares an ADIZ and all of a sudden what used to be high seas is territory that we'll be using only because China allows us to do so.Potentially a crisis situation by the end of the year if China heads down the path Peter Jennings believes, as he says. He reckons an air defence identification zone will declared by the end of the year based on the developments we have seen in the South China Sea. He believes, you heard, that Australia should join the United States in conducting one of these freedom of navigation exercises within 12 nautical miles of these disputed islands. You think once the American presidential election is out of the way, we will see who wins, will there be greater pressure applied on the Australians to muscle up in the South China Sea. Not an easy one for the Turnbull Government by any stretch. It could be one of the big foreign policy challenge for the newly re-he ected Australian Prime Minister. Now, continue is census night. The Bureau of Statistics has said more than a million have already filled out their census online. They're hoping two-thirds of us will do it online. It is about recording what the status was in your house on Tuesday night. It doesn't have to be on Tuesday night. You have until September 23 to get it done. There have, however, been a lots of privacy concerns this time around. This has been a more controversial census, no doubt about it. A lot of those concerns centre on the fact you are required to put your name and address on the form when you fill it in - either online or on paper. That's not new. You've always had to do that. But what is new this time around is keeping that data for a full four years rather than 18 months. Here was David Kalisch, the head statistician at the Bureau of Statistics late this afternoon explaining why.The ABS has always collected names in the census. It has always been compulsory and it contributes to better quality of statistics. Your community relies on you to perform this legal requirement and your census information will contribute to valuable national statistics. There's no doubt the ABS and the Government have left it very late in the piece to mount this argument, this explanation as to why it needs to do all of this, why it needs to keep these names for four years an how we can all be satisfied that there won't be a breach of privacy. There are some decent arguments - there has never been a preach of privacy. The -- breach of privacy. The names and addresses will ultimately be kept on a different system to all the data you fill out in the form. There are also concerns about sharing this data with other government agencies, cross-referencing it's called. Why is that needed? And which particular agencies will be able to cross-reference the census data? Again, that's still a little bit of a grey area, although we're assured that it won't involve anything that could do with any sort of criminal action. A court, for example, can't compel this evidence. It can't even be used to follow a terrorist case or a murder case. David Kalisch again here explaining why this cross-referencing of data is needed.This enables us to produce the number of key national statistics around our economy, around migrants, around the performance of the health and education system. It allows us more time to provide more information to governments, more information to decision-makers, but also provide it in a way that does inform public policy. He's also expressed disappointment this afternoon at a number of public figures, as he put them, who have said they won't be filling out their name and address on the census form. In statistician speak for a senior public ser vabts there, it was about as angry as -- servant there, it was about as angry as he could get. Make no mistake the achlBS is dismayed that Nick Xenophon and a number of his senators, and Jacqui Lambie as well, that have all said they won't put their name and address on the form. They are sufficiently concerned despite the briefings they've received about the security arrangements here, the fact that the Australian signals directorate arrangements has tested it. -Labor is also critical of the gooeft here but not of -- Government, here but not of the actual requirement to put your name and address on the form. Here is Bill Shorten.I am frustrated that this Government has bungled is census so much that we see these debates about how long they should keep the information for. People should remember that in 2011 some of this data was kept for a period of up to 18 months. What I ask Australians to do is the census is something we've been doing for 100 years. I think it is so close to being completed and tens of millions of dollars have been spent in rolling out the census I ask Australians to please not make that effort a waste.A little later this hour we will be talking to a demographer from the Australian National University. She says these concerns about privacy and the leakage of the data are understandable but they are misplaced. We will find out why we don't need to be concerned about all of this. That's coming up. To the Olympics, the Australian swimmers have missed out on medals on day 3 in Rio but history was made with the women's rugby Seven's team made history, winning gold, after beating New Zealand in the final. James bracey is in Rio and filed this report. The Australian women arrived in Brazil as world champions and with that, plenty of pressure. They lived up to the tag, though, going through the entire campaign undefeated. Capped off by a 24-17 victory over arch rivals New Zealand in the final. Coming from five points down to score 24 unanswered points. Then conceding two late tries to the Kiwis for a 24-17 victory. An emotional one to say the least.It's an amazing experience and to have all the girls besides me, through it all, has been amazing. They won a gold medal for me so I'm so proud.So Australia's swimmers were hoping to add to Australia's four medals on the overall tally in the pool with the backstroke taking centrestage. The 100 for men and wichl -- women. Mitch Larkin was unable to emulate his success as the reigning world champion, and Emily Seebohm, reigning world champion as well, along with Madison Wilson, the pair finishing 8th and 7th. The crash in the velodrome in the team pursuit during training, they were going 6km/h. Four went down, three walked away with friction burns and bruises but Melissa Hoskings was stretched from the velodrome, but scans have cleared her of any damage. She'll be cleared and good to go for the team pursuit in Rio. And we'll hear from more James Bracey live from Rio in our next hour. A Hobart teenager will spend at least two-and-a-half years in custody for the manslaughter of a pregnant woman whose baby was delivered after her death. He was sentenced to a maximum of five years jail for killing Sarah Paino after running a red light. The judge flagged potential drug and alcohol and also potential mental health issues. The 5-year sentence will be backdated to January this year. Presidential nominee Donald Trump has outlined his economic plans, saying he'll usher in the largest tax revolution in the United States since the Regan era. Meanwhile, further division has emerged within the Republican Party with several prominent advisers openly criticising the candidate.She is the candidate of the past. Ours is the campaign of the future.Donald Trump's top advisers have been begging him to get back on message and position himself as an agent of change against Hillary Clinton. Today, evidence of a Trump conversion.When we reform our tax, trade, energy and regulatory policies, we will open up a new chapter in American prosperity.And yet, Trump's economic proposals align with every Republican President and nominee since Ronald Regan, with across the Board tax cuts, hostility to federal regulations and support of fossil fuels.My plan will reduce the current number of brackets from 7 to 3 and dramatically streamline the process.Donald Trump scrapped his original tax plan and embraced a less expensive one drafted by in-house Republicans. Trump's first the plan had a top rate of 25% and a more generous standard deduction. The non-partisan Tax Policy Centre estimated Trump's original plan would have cost more than $10 trillion in its first 0 years. The House GOP plan is about a third less costly. Trump's speech was interrunted more than a -- interrupted more than a dozen times by protesters in what appeared to be a coordinated effort to throw him off course. Trump remained unphased.It is all very well planned out.While Trump tried to drive his economic message, 50 high-ranking Republicans signed a letter opposing Trump, saying he would be the most reckless president in the history of America. Trump dismissed the letter saying those who signed it were responsible for making the world a dangerous place. Will this letter hurt him at all? We will look at that. We will also look at the tax plan he has laid out o, simplify -- laid out, simplifying the tax code, these tax changes he's announced today will heavily favour the wealthy rather than those at the bottom event. We will talk more about that in our next hour. After the break, Anthony Albanese, about Labor's Shadow Transport and Infrastructure Minister. Stay with us.

A lot of talk about the census this week. Everyone is meant to be filling it out tonight. You don't technically have to do it tonight but it is about tonight - how many people were in your house, how many bedrooms in your house, all that sort of thing. You can fill it out until September 23. A lot of concerns about the privacy, filling out your name and address, which you always had to fill out your name and address, but it will now be accept for four years, instead of 18 months. There are concerns about government agencies being able to use the data in cross-referencing with other agencies. Anthony Albanese joins us to discuss this. What do you think of the census? Are you one of those worried about it?Look, I'll be filling in the census tonight and I hope that all Australians do because when it comes to infrastructure, the census provides important information about the population, about where people are living, about future growth. And that data can be used to plan, essentially, where funds should go to make sure that infrastructure meets the needs of today and the future. But there is no doubt that there is a great deal of concern out there. I've had - I can't recall this being an issue in the past, frankly.Have you had constituents ring your in office? Oh, absolutely.A lot?Oh, absolutely. Ringing, sending emails...What are they worried about?They're worried about privacy, they're worried about the information being kept. People weren't aware, I don't think, about...I mean, years ago, they don't remember that they put their address and name down last time. So that's been seen to be a new issue. The Government has just gone missing on this. The Minister responsible has gone missing. I saw Assistant Minister McCormack trying his best out there but frankly struggling about why the names and addresses and why they are keeping them longer than they have in the past.Do you see the case for that? You mentioned infrastructure, it is important to keep data for four years.I haven't seen any case put by anyone to keep the information in terms of names, addresses, etceteras for longer.Not the names, addresses, etcetera. They say they'll separate those off and just have a code...Yes, but the code is attached to the name, is the concern that's there. I don't think it's been explained to people - at all. I certainly wasn't conscious, as the infrastructure shadow minister, it is obviously not my responsibility. I didn't follow the detail. I'm surprised the Government hasn't got on top of this. You could see it coming. It is not like the complaints have started over the last day or to. They've been coming for -- or two. They've been coming for many weeks and there has been no response from the Government.It is one of those things that you don't want to see pleutised at all -- politicised at all.It certainly isn't a political issue.Would it be better have the Government's face all over this, convincing us OK?Absolutely. They shouldn't be partisan about it. They should be out there, explaining issues, just like ministers and shadow ministers go out in my portfolio and explain the importance of road safety and transport regulations and those issues. I have had various briefings from Canberra, I'm had briefings from the department that certainly aren't partisan.Let's turn to that. What are you pursuing in your portfolio over the next four years?The big concern is the complete breakdown of the relationship between infrastructure Australia and proper planning and action. We saw during the election campaign quite extraordinarily, 73 out of 77 road projects, adding up to ta total of $858 million, were no Coalition electorates. This is the pork barrel of all pork barrels. This is a pig farm when it comes to election announcements. There is mud everywhere all over these announcements.Both sides of politics have issues about this in their past when it comes to pork-barrelling. But this case you're talking about here, 96% of the road projects announced by the Coalition in the election campaign were in Coalition electorates.This is Olympic gold record standard. This is unbelievable. And what's extraordinary isn't just that - it's what wasn't announced. Nothing for Perth metronet, nothing for Adelaide, nothing for the cross-river rail project in Brisbane, nothing new for Metro Rail project in Melbourne, or for Darwin. No new infrastructure projects announced during the longest election campaign in living memory. Just small, little pork-barrelling projects. As I said, 7 # out of 767 -- 73 out of 77. The other four, by the way, were in marginal electorates, particularly Lingiari in the Northern Territory.We have this infrastructure body and we know you say beef it up over every spending decision. Should it be responsible for these minor ones?Well, you wouldn't bother. No it shouldn't. One of them is to fix up a road where there is a billycart race every year. This is just farcical. The Government has just got it wrong. They talked a lot about cities. The only announcements that they did during the election campaign for cities, so-called city deals, was they matched the money that Labor had committed much earlier on for the University of Tasmania around Launceston and the Townsville Stadium and called it a city deal. There was nothing new in it. After prevaricating and delay of those important announcements, they put a new label on it and announced it was new. I think people thought this Malcolm Turnbull was a guy that likes public transport. What they know now is he likes taking selfies on public transport - he just won't fund it.What do you think Labor should do on the gay marriage member sit? -- Plebiscite?I think we should support having a vote in the Parliament.The Government won the election, they have a mandate to have this plebiscite.We have a mandate for our position and our position is the vote for the parliament.Do you think there should be a plebiscite...We'll have that debate within the party room.What's your view on it?My view is I'm very concerned about the implications of a divisive debate for young people coming to terms with their sexuality in communities that mightn't be as supportive as the one I represent around Newtown around Dulwich Hill, a very diverse community...It is better to way -- better to wait than risk of all that.No, better to get it done. Better to have the Parliament get it done and have a conscience vote.The Liberal Party quonet won't -- Liberal Party won't do that.You will recall, David, everyone in the Liberal Party said, "Every vote is a conscience vote." That's what they say. That's what they should put in place.On this, they took this policy to the election, they won the election, they are in government they're going to put up this legislation for a plebiscite.Why aren't they having a plebiscite on health, on education, on transport, on everything? Why is this special? Why is it that you and I, I think you're married as well, David, you and I have, who are married, get a vote on someone else's relationship that is between those two people? I'm sorry, but in my view, a relationship is defined by those people who are in it. And if two loving people want to join the family of people who are married, without taking away any of the rights that you and I currently enjoy, why is it that that should be the subject of a divisive national debate at the cost of hundreds of millions of dollars? Just finally on another matter, tomorrow here in Canberra, Andrew Denton is speaking at the Press Club on euthanasia.I'll be going to that.You'll be attending. This is primarily a state issue except for a brief period when the Northern Territory had laws in place which was then overturned by the Federal Parliament. What's your views on this?I am a supporter of voluntary euthanasia. I argued that case when Kevin Andrews' bill was before the Parliament. I think it is a very complex bill, a complex issue. I think it certainly should be the subject to a conscience vote. That's my view about all of these issues, consistently, as they should all be decided by conscience votes. But I personally think that the reality of someone suffering and choosing, basically, a more humane way to depart this world should be respected. We actually know from talking to medical experts that it occurs all the time in terms of people make decisions, people, you know, get morphined-up to help them through that difficult time, for themselves and also for their family. And I just think to say that someone who is at the point whereby their life is going to end, regardless of what else happens but it can end really painfully and in a really difficult way, or in a way that respects their wishes, their personal wishes, then I have a liberal attitude towards that issue.There are, obviously, the areas of it where do you draw the line, all those details, which no doubt will be discussed.I respect the fact...I think it is, you know, I don't profess to say I'm right on this because I think it is a matter of judgement and I think you certainly have to be very careful about the provisions around it, to make sure there is no abuse.Andrew Denton's speech tomorrow should be a really interesting one.I'm really looking forward to hearing it.I will come along as well and we will show it to you live on Sky News at lunchtime as well. Thank you for joining us.Good to be with you.Getting back to the census, as I've mentioned it is not the first time you've had to put down your name and address, it has always been thus, but there hasn't been as much controversy around the census as this time. Here is a reminder of some of the came -- campaigns. Think back to 1966. # On the 30th of June # Census day is here.It seems a terrible fuss over such a simple thing.We have a job to do that's important to Australia. It's a very costly job for our country but when an Australian has a job to do, he does it well! # It's strictly confidential, and as easy as a, b, c. # On 30 June, the census will be Does everyone have here...#to fill it in.Yes, everybody who is in Australia on Thursday night. Even visitors passing through. Anyway, if you have any problems ask the collect or.The census collector? Yes, it is much easier than it looks. The main thing is to read it carefully, you start from the left-hand corner...I think I'll ask the collector. There you go, these days, of course, most of us, two-thirds of us, are expected to do it online. Have we seen anything like that sort of campaign? Probably not. Might have missed it. With me now to talk about some of the concerns about the census is demographer Liz Allen. Thank you for joining me. You said the privacy fears over data retention are understandable but misinformed. Why?I think it is unfortunate we have come on the tail of the longest election campaign ever, so I think it has been a little adversely influenced by that. But it also hasn't helped that a lot of people in the media, well-respected, well-regarded journalists, have been clal -- have been claiming things that aren't necessarily true. Those claims have been exaggerated and misinformation has been proliferated throughout social media.You have to put your name and address on and you've always had to do that.Always.But what then happens to the data? Regardless of whether you fill your form out online via the eCensus or on paper form, the moment you fill out that form it is protected by the Privacy Act and by the Acts that govern the ABS. Who can access that?OK. So based on the ABS Acts and the Census and Statistics Act, the only people who can access that identifiable information is the ABS, and the ABS have put in place safeguards by stripping names, holding them in one place, putting addresses in a second, and then the rest of the data somewhere else. There'll be functional separation. They'll be physically held in different locations.Right.They will not ever be able to be accessed by one single person. So each will be under a different person's control.So if, for example, another government agency, maybe it is the Department of Indigenous Affairs wants to access some data, what can they access? They cannot access under any circumstances, the ABS cannot release any idth identifiable information -- identifiable information. The data are perturbed in a little way to ensure that people cannot be re-identified once the names and addresses are stripped off.All they'll get is a group of picture of this suburb... That's right.The same will apply to ASIO...Let's be very clear, the Act specifies that the ABS cannot under any circumstance release to identifiable information or dataout side of the bureau. Not to PM, not to a court. It cannot be subpoenaed. The police can't get hold of it.So even the police, if they wanted to track a terrorist, for example.Yes.Or find out information on someone they subpoenaed. suspect, they cannot access?They cannot. More importantly, the ABS wouldn't likely to be able to grab hold of that because as I said, there's that functional separation that occurs. That cannot happen. Even with the statistical unique identifier, you cannot reidentify someone based on that. The ABS have been very clear on that and the Australian Privacy Commissioner has come out and supported the procedures and the strict protocols that the ABS are adhering to.I heard David Kalisch at the Bureau of Statistics say, about the concern about whether this would be hacked by anyone who does want to access this stuff, it has been tested by the Australian Signals Directorate Tts and they're happy with it.Yes.You have to supraseparate -- you have to separate the name from the data? But it is happens instantaneously. I did read that it may take some months to separate some of the... That's a processing procedure. Right.But the data aren't held in a way that it can be easily accessed.Alright. And then with the...once it is separated and your name is put over there and all your data is put over here and a code is put on that one...Yes...Does the next census in another five years' time, can it link back to my data from this one?Look, I can't comment on that. From a statistical point of view we can use probabilistic matching and other techniques to certainly link, but I can't speak about the intent of the ABS with relation to that.Alright. Well, Dr Liz Allen, I think you've satisfied a lot of the concerns out there and have explained it very well. Thank you for joining us this afternoon.Thank you.We will take a quick break. Our panel this afternoon - Peter Hartcher and Paul Kelly.

It

Let's bring in our panel, Paul Kelly, Editor-at-Large at The Kelly. Australian newspaper, and Peter Hartcher. Good afternoon, gentlemen. I want to start with Ausgrid. We are expecting a decision from Treasurer on whether Aus grid should be sold or at least leased for 99 years to one of two Chinese bidders. One is the state-owned enterprise State Grid Corporation. The other is a Hong Kong-listed company. We have seen reports that intelligence officials are concerned about this, particularly about a Chinese state-owned entity owning the electricity distributor, but it does own other electricity assets in Australia. Peter Hartcher, to you first on this, are there legitimate grounds for concerns about a Chinese state-owned company owning Ausgrid?Yes, there are, David, for the very clear and explicit reason that state-owned enterprises have a dual mandate where they, on the one hand, are supposed to share the interests of the shareholders to get an economic return but on the other hand are also subject to explicit instructions on any other number of mandates but what is generally the same, ultimate shareholder, and that is the Chinese Government, to carry out other tasks incompatible with those of a free enterprise organisation. And they are required to act according to the sovereign needs of the people's Republic of China. This isn't something we're guessing at our making up. Not only is it explicit in the mandates of these firms, but when they list some or part of their shares on overseas stock exchanges they actually set out in English around the world, many of them have already, that they will be from time to time subject to explicit direction on non-commercial grounds from Beijing. So this is an established fact. There is no argument about this. You've made the point...Peter, isn't that then an argument to say we need a complete ban on state-owned enterprises in China owning any important infrastructure asset?It is precisely that, David. You made the point earlier that already some electricity assets in other states have been sold to China's State Grid Corporation. In my vie, -- view, that is a mistake. We need consistency and Black Letter law. But you can't make the case if the NSW Government, or in this case the decision-maker will be the Treasurer Scott Morrison, if he rules against State Grid acquiring this interest, you certainly couldn't argue that this would be in any way racist or xenophobic. This is not about nationality, the race or place of Origin of State Grid.Paul Kelly, do we need clearer rules around state-owned enterprises buying infrastructure assets because, without them, you're going to end up with the NSW Government pretty upset if it can't get this sale through for the top dollar on offer. And you're going to have China particularly upset here as well?Well, we need either a clearer approach, which can be defined as a result of decisions taken, or a more prescribed approach. But I think it's really important on this issue that the Government spell out the fundamental parameters and we should start with the notion that there's nothing at all wrong with the sale of this asset. This is the first issue to get absolutely clear. There is nothing wrong with the principle of privatisation. Secondly, there's nothing wrong with the principle of privatisation and an overseas company acquiring the asset. Because, to a certain extent, what we're now seeing, I think particularly from Hanson, the argument against any sale whatsoever. That is just nonsense. Then when it comes to a State-owned enterprise, this is a very different matter altogether. I think that the Australian Government and Australian Government authorities have been very slow over the last couple of years in understanding the full security implications of this. I think there is, at face value, a serious problem with a Chinese state-owned enterprise acquiring this asset. But if that's the case and if that's the decision, it needs to be spelt out very clearly so people understand what the actual nature of the issue is. That is, it needs to be spelt out in tomorrows of the nature of the argument against a state-owned enterprise, the nature of the argument in terms of security grounds. Now, the reason this is so important is because what we're in danger of seeing in this country is a very significant increase in hostility towards foreign investment and the emergence of a far more protectionist climate. This is dangerous. And so, if the Government or if the Treasurer is finding against this, it is really critical that we all understand the basis on which he acts. I think that's a really important point because, you know tlrk -- you know, there is a danger if they say no to this, even if it is on legitimate security grounds, there is a danger that Australia is becoming less interested in free trade and foreign investment. Let me turn to the resumption of Parliament. It is a few weeks away but this is a pretty critical time to work out what they're going to do with the resumption of Parliament. There are not many sitting weeks left. Will they discuss with the ABCCC bill, which triggered the election or -- ABCC Bill, the company tax cuts that were the centrepiece of the election piece, the gay marriage plebiscite it hopes to have some time this year, anti-terror laws, media reforms - the list goes on and on. Peter, what should be on top of the list?First, the Government needs to clear the political and constitutional imperative of sorting those bills which were the trigger for the double dissolution. They are obviously, the ABCC being reinstituted and the registered organisations law. They have to go before a joint sitting. It is my understanding that Turnbull intends them to go before a joint sitting in the first week or so of the new Parliament. After that, it is questions of national security and anything of economic urgency have to take priority. One of the key, outstanding national security items is this question about allowing the age of people subject to control orders in terrorist-related cases being lowered to 14. That doesn't need to be legislated by the Federal Government. It is a state-based matter. The Federal Government does, however, have to convene the states, bring them together, and coordinate an urgent app national -- urgent national approach. That can be under way already without waiting for Parliament. It is the case with quite a few of those that the Government needs to be working on those things now and doesn't need to wait for the formal resumption of Parliament. The Budget measures as you mentioned have to be a priority and, again, there is no reason why negotiations can't be under way as the Parliament resumes on some of those measures which will be important. The economic priority, if the Government says that the reason we need the corporate, 10-year corporate tax cut plan is to stimulate investment and growth, well, the need for that has become only more urgent not less as the prospects of global economic growth have dimmed not improved. So that should be an urgent priority too. Paul, some of these on this list will be more likely to get through than others. Should that be a factor, will it be a factor for the Government, trying to secure at least a couple of wins early on in this new Parliament, or do you agree with Peter that it needs to go in the order of what needs to get done first?Look, the first point to make here, David, is that it's good news that the Government has got a busy agenda. It's good news for the Government that it's got a lot of items to put to the Parliament. What's got to happen, what Malcolm Turnbull has got to do above all else, is he's got to try and set the agenda. This is a new parliament. He's been a re-elected Prime Minister, although, of course, he, to a certain extent, remains on life support. But he has to change the environment from the earlier part of this year. He must set the agenda. He just set the agenda with the Parliament and with the country. So that's the first point to make. The next point to make is that the immediate priority will be the industrial relations bills that were the subject of the double dissolution along with the other industrial relations bill off the back of the County Fire Authority issue in Victoria. Now, the double dissolution bills will be put back to the new Parliament and if they don't succeed, they'll be put to a joint sitting. It is very important for Malcolm Turnbull, I think, to try and have a win on these IR bills. If he's defeated on these IR bills, that be a tremendous political setback. What he has to do is, he has to bring new pressure to bear on the new Parliament. After the IR bills, he can then move on to the broader agenda. But, clearly, the Budget bills, the Budget bills and the Budget measures, will be very important in that process. Alright. Paul Kelly, Peter Hartcher, thank you both very much for joining us this afternoon.A pleasure.Look forward to catching up very soon. We will take a break after that. We will be talking US politics in our next hour. In particular, Donald Trump, trying refocus on policy with a tax plan he's announced in a speech in Detroit. Also policy announcements on trade, on energy, whether he wants to talk up the Paris Agreement. Stay with us. Captions by refocus Ericsson Access Services.