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.
Insiders -

View in ParlViewView other Segments

(generated from captions) to come to her senses. No. You just convince your sister DRAMATIC MUSIC SHOUTING AND SCREAMING Targets identified. (SCREAMS) Run! Run!


This Program Is Captioned Live.

Good morning. Counting is underway from yesterday's

from yesterday's general election in

Afghanistan, which was marked by

Taliban attacks on polling stations, Taliban attacks on polling

killing 14 people. Insurgents fired

rockets in several provincial cities

and a bomb damaged a convoy carrying

the governor of Kandahar. Despite

attacks, Afghan electoral officials the governor of Kandahar. Despite the

say up to 40 percent of registered

voters turned out to cast their

ballots. Thousands

through London, protesting against

Pope Benedict and the Catholic

Church. The protestors condemned the

church for its attitude to condom

use, homosexuality, women's rights

and child abuse. Pope Benedict is in

Britain, where he's met five people

who were sexually abused by Roman

Catholic clerics. The Prime Minister

has used a policy speech to

that Labor will work to put a price has used a policy speech to reiterate

on carbon. Julia Gillard was in the

New South Wales town of Bathurst

night to deliver her first major New South Wales town of Bathurst last

She says climate change as key speech since the federal election. speech since the federal

She says climate change as key policy area and she's urged politicians

all sides to support the National area and she's urged politicians from

Broadband Network. And in the AFL - all sides to support the National

St Kilda has booked a grand berth against Collingwood. At the St Kilda has booked a grand final last night, the

last night, the Saints beat the berth against Collingwood. At the MCG

Western Bulldogs by 24 points. And

Rugby League - the Sydney Roosters Western Bulldogs by 24 points. And in

are one win away from the NRL grand final, after beating

final, after beating Penrith at the

Sydney Football Stadium. And now

Insiders with Barry Cassidy. Live. Good morning, welcome This Program is Captioned

to Insiders. In a little over a

week from now, the country will

see what a minority government looks like on the floor of the

house. Just who will be in the

speaker 's chair is anybody's guess. One independent, Rob Oakeshott, has sent the major

parties scurrying for the rule

certain how that will books, now he's said he

the voting in a hung certain how that will impact on the books, now he's said he wants

parliament. Meanwhile, Kevin

Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull are

back reincarnate d and sitting

on the frontbenches, although in Kevin Rudd's case, only when

his diary allows. Bill Hayden

be was the last former leader to

be given foreign affairs as a

consolation prize, and he said, I sought foreign affairs

voluntary exile as much as I because I wanted to go into

could. In that respect, Kevin

Rudd is off to a flying I present the honourable

Kevin Michael Rudd MP to be the

Minister for foreign affairs.

I'm sure the opposition will have a lot have a lot of critical things

to say about him. Well dwrom

to my world. Later today,

I'll be flying to the flood

affected areas of Pakistan and

then to Washington and then to

New York. The first thing Kevin Rudd does as soon as he's

appointed is jump on board the

seeing Secretary of 747. In Washington , I'll be

seeing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The punters would think, here we go again.

Kevin Rudd is picking up up

where he left off. In New York I'll be attending the

Secretary-General's high level

panel on sustainablity. He

will take every opportunity to

strut the world stage and act

as if he is the Prime Minister

in exile. It will be one of Foreign Minister of Australia. many things ilI'll do as

It might be appropriate for Mr

Rudd to go, but the optics are

bad. Mr Rudd will play his

proper role. By the way, as

Trade Minister, I've got to

break this to you, I'll be

travelling with you. Last one,

then I've got to head to the


He's been in the job for

make judgments about it. We one day, so it's

will judge Kevin Rudd on his

performance, as we did when he

was Prime Minister, and that's

why he's no longer Prime Minister. I love these

psychoanalyses. The challenge

for Julia Gillard is to assert

her authority over Kevin Rudd.

It's difficult for Ms Gillard

to draw the attention away from

Kevin Rudd to herself. I'm not

going to have a running

the ministers commentary about meetings with

professional. Kevin Rudd relationship is productive and professional. Kevin Rudd has relationship is productive

warsment unfortunately, he was had experience in civil

on the losing end of it.

He has a history of

undermining every leader he has ever served under. Julie Bishop

Bishop wouldn't have drawn the

attention away from Tony Abbott by sashaying around Lake Burley

Griffin with the American

ambassador. George is good on big words. I don't intend to

engage in any retrospective on recent political events,

including the conduct of the

last federal election. Anybody

who has the job he thinks he who has the job he thinks

should have, he leaks against

them. As I've said before when

asked that, the answer is no.

Any other questions? This will

be a test for him as well. It

will be a very great challenge to see if he can succeed.

Having said that, folks, it

really is time to you. really is time to zip. Thank Our program guest this

morning, to try and get the lay

morning, to try and get the lay

of the lapped on the speaker's

job is, the manager of

House of Representatives, opposition business in the

Christopher Pyne. First, we'll

look at Sunday papers. Julia

Gillard's light on the hill

speech in Bathurst is getting a good run. She is basically

asking the political parties to set aside partisanship in the

interests of the country. The parliament has not yet even

met, but Mr Abbott has already

spoken of how he the government down. In saying

that, Mr Abbott implies that he

does not intend a constructive

engagement with the new parliament. Instead, he wishes only to engineer a set of

events leading to a vote of no confidence. Lenore Taylor,

what is she doing there? I

think she is, in the first

instance, saying that the great

Labor hero, Ben Chifley, also

presided over a minority

government, ie it has worked in

the past, and making

comparisons with the period when the Snowy Mountains scheme

was built, which is like the

NBN because it is big. Then she

gets to the bit where she says

that Mr Abbott, for the good of

the nation, is to put aside the nation, is to put aside the empty rancour of partisanship.

In her dreams. Mr Abbott has

got some very important

decisions to make about how to

run opposition, but it's his

job to hold her to account. The

idea that he will suddenly join

in the minority government and

the new paradigm is, you would

have to say, fanciful, have to say, fanciful, and I don't time soon. There are mixed

signals, Phil, in an interview for Saturday's Harded, where

she said there is a new

environment, she may not be

able to keep all the prop says able to keep all the prop suse

because she has to get because she has to get

legislation through a

parliament she doesn't control.

Last night she said she wants

to govern as if she won in a

landslide. On the surface they

are conflicting statements. She

was saying she was confining that to big legislation, big that policies require that to big legislation, big policies require big

legislation, pretty much the

climate change stuff. Labor

went to the election saying one thing, that's clearly not going

to happen, and she's claiming a

new environment, the BHP chief executive Marius Kloppers gave

a speech putting it back on the

agenda, so this momentum has come out of nowhere that no one

is expecting, and she wants to

seize on that. Also with the

Greens in the parliament, if something happens, let the

parliament do it. If it's not

exactly what Labor promised

before the election, so be it,

but put it down to the new

environment. That's the reality of a minority

government. Whoever became Prime Minister would have to

change their policies a

bit to get them through the parliament and show some flexibility. Surely Tony Abbott

would have had to do that too.

Is that an in-built excuse,

Michael, for not being able to

deliver on the issues? We are

seeing this week the seeing this week the great failure of politics in failure of politics in the parliament. A month after election we are still

squabbling over how we divide

up the jobs. There is still an

argument over the speak areas job. No two sides, Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott, are

arguing over whether either

side has a mandate to govern.

Abbott is saying he will be an alternative government in opposition. While politics

degenerated fur into the

squabble over jobs this week,

with no real movement on where

the country is going to go over

the next three years, you saw elite and the business elite,

Marius Kloppers, the Reserve

Bank made comment, you saw the

business council make comments,

and they are all pointing out that Australia that Australia has gone through

this golden period, our living

standard are the highest they

have ever been, but underlying

that, our productivity growth

has fallen away a-alarm ingly.

We are living off high coal,

iron ore export prices which is

unsustainable and we need to

have strong government moving on the big productivity

reality, because they rely on independents? That's the point

and the failure of politics the

political class is dealing

with, and they are struggling to come up to come up with a viable form of government. Tony Abbott is

trying to come to terms with

his role. You say he wants to

be a government in exile. It

is inevitably terribly

disappointing to each and every

one of us in this room that

despite all the good work,

despite all the success, despite all the success, that we have not been able we have not been able to form a

government. There will be much disappointment, inevitably.

There may even be some anger. The only constructive way to

channel that frustration and

disappointment is to redouble

our attacks on the Labor Party.

That's an interesting approach. There's a lot of anger and disappointment, and

the way to get it off their chests is to beat the hell out

of the government. To get

angrier. There is a slight contradiction because he said,

we shouldn't say we were

robbed, that's not the right response. But, by the way, the

government is illegitimate and

does not have a mandatement one

or other of those statements

can be true, but I don't think

both can be true. The think I

the Coalition has a working through about how they

deal with opposition and how

they hold the government to

account. In his column this

morning, he said, we got more votes, two-party preferred,

Labor won by 30,000, but it was

effectively a tie, and more

seats, but that depends on what

side of the ledger you put Tony Crook

at all. He said, the wootion

"We was robbed" thing is something the public doesn't

want to hear, so we won't say

it, but he believes it clearly. He's only clearly. He's only a

by-election or two away from

government. Julia Gillard is saying, the policies I took to

the electorate - which were all

about dealing with the cities and the suburbs, instead,

because she didn't get quite to

the line and has to rely on the

country independents, now it's


the bush, which is trying to be

brought into a narrative about

Chifley and light on the hill

and universality of services

for Australia. She will have a

program that is not based what she took to the election

either. It's really - no either. It's really - no one

really has a mandate that they

took to the election that they

got endorsed that they can put into

into government, so it is bound

to be contested. At the same

time, Tony Abbott is signalling he won't do too much to either

his frontbench or the policies

he took to the election, he

wants to keep hitting until we

get the answer right. I don't know that that's a really

constructive way, from the

Liberal's own point of view, to

run opposition. Probably not

good therapy. In the first

instance, you can't blame him

for spending six months to see

if he can blow the government over.

over. That's why he didn't change his frontbench, he

hardly changed a thing, it got

him almost across the line.

Because he wants to be ready

for government at any time.

You might see a reassessment in

six months if the huff and puff

and employee the place down

approach doesn't approach doesn't work. the people who

the people who signed up to

form the minority government

would want to try to keep it

longer for six months. That's

not in his interest. Yes, but

against his huff and puff. there will be strong forces there will be strong

Mark Arbib was transferred this

morning, and on Agenda, and he

is arguing that the New South

Wales right saved the day, particularly in New South

Wales. He sort of has a point.

They were supposed to get wiped

out in New South Wales, Labor,

Bennelong and Macquarie, and they lost two seats, they held

lost two notional seats. They

did better in New South Wales

with Queensland. The four than they thought, compared

seats he mentions, eemed eemed, Lindsay and

Greenway all Eden-Monaro, all

went to Labor. They were in deep trouble when the election

was called, and even mid-way. They

They were behind until they

announced the Parramatta Epping

railway, and even Parramatta

was behind for Labor, it was a word, if that's the word, if that's the case. They

would have lost the election if

they had lost Lindsay or Robertson, Abbott would be

Prime Minister today. In an

isolate the case, speaking

about New South Wales, Arbib is

right. On Agenda he was asked

if he had spoken to Kevin Rudd. Our paths haven't crossed in terms of our

portfolio areas, but I'm happy

to talk to Kevin and I'm sure I

will be working with him in

future. I don't know how many ministers have spoken Rudd, he looked happy at the

front of Government House, and

he spoke to Senator Conroy and

many other ministers. There is

no faceless man here, the same

as Bill Shorten. This is a

ridiculous line that has

probably come out of a focus

group from Tony Abbott and has

pervaded into the media and

into the general community, but

it is absolute rubbish. I want

to make sure people understand that. He is saying that he

will walk away from that

unofficial internal role within

the pair, the power broking role

national executive. Yes, which

is a big symbolic gesture to

step aside from the national

executive. I'm sure he will

still be apprised of events and

know what's going on, but he

needs to stand back and be seen

as a minister. I know he wanted

indigenous affairs, and if you

watch him in that area, he may

try to do what Shorten did disabilities in the last term. try to do what Shorten did with

The New South Wales fluffed the election for got a letter result for Labor,

but wasn't it Arbib and the

other power Brookes who put the

pressure on Kevin Rudd, with

Julia Gillard backing, to dump

the emissions trading, and

didn't that pull out the plug

from Kevin Rudd's left Liberal

flank and saw his poll numbers

fall, and when they fell the

power brokers came in and

chopped off his head. Even

though they were persuasive on

the policy, it was Kevin Rudd

who fluffed it by not

explaining it when he walked

Sunday papers. Our program away from it. That's the

House of Representatives,

Christopher Pyne. He joins us from Adelaide. Good morning

and welcome. Good morning,

Barrie. Could we be clear from the start about your position regarding Rob Oakeshott

speaker. Are you oppose d to

that happening? Look, it's up

the speaker for the House of to the government to provide

Representatives. I guess the

question is, has the government

dumped Harry Jenkins? Julia

Gillard hasn't been asked that

question. We don't provide the speaker from the opposition.

That comes Rob Oakeshott has run his flag

up the pole, and asked for

support. The government has not

yet indicated whether they have

dumped Harry Jenkins. We have

said we would prefer Harry

Jenkins, we think he has been a

good speaker, he's been fairly

and reasonable. Of course, it's

much easier if the speaker

comes from the Labor Party, as

they are the government. Is

that because you want to deny

the Labor Party a vote? Look, it's

it's because the government

provides the speaker, Barrie. In terms of aspects of the speakership, I

asked Anthony Albanese last

week to get some very watertight constitutional

advice about exactly what can be done in terms of

speakership, and I assume he's

getting that advice, because we

need to know that by the time

we go back on Tuesday week.

Tony Abbott says part of the

reason why Rob Oakeshott wants

the job is because he wants to

avoid voting on individual

pieces of legislation, so he doesn't alienate his that's what's motivating electoratement do you think

I don't know exactly what is

motivating Rob Oakeshott. He

has indicated he's a candidate.

Julia Gillard is yet to

indicate whether Harry Jenkins

has been dumped. That's a good

government does provide the question to ask her, as the question to ask

speaker. We have indicated we

support Harry Jenkins remaining

in the speakership. It's up to the parliament at the end of

the day, but the speaker comes

from the government side. In

your discussion s, before the

group hug, when you came up

with the deal about parliamentary arrangements...

I wasn't so keen, I can tell you. I noticed that at the

time. Were not those discussions predicated on the possibility that an independent

might be the speaker? No, they

weren't predicated on that possibility. possibility. The negotiations

went for some time, and in

those negotiations we assumed

that the speaker would come

from the government side. As

far as the opposition is concerned, if it is Rob

Oakeshott, then that is part of the non-opposition, if you

like, the non-opposition side

of the house, so he will be

government side, and the deputy government regard he as a member of the

speaker would then be from the

opposition. Having an

independent as speaker brings

with it a whole lot of

complications in terms of how

that person, if they are

provided with a pair, how that

would work. That is the constitutional

constitutional advice that Anthony Albanese and Julia

Gillard have to get. We cannot

have a situation where in this

parliament every piece of

legislation can be declared

invalid by the High Court

because of an invalid pairing arrangement of the speak parliament will grind to speaker, otherwise the parliament will grind to a

halt. It is the government's responsibility to make sure

that's not the case, not the opposition's. These opposition's. These are

questions that Anthony Albanese and Julia Gillard need to

answer, starting with, have

they dumped Harry Jenkins or are they prepared to support him as speaker? I would have

thought a lot of members of the Labor Party would be very

concerned if Harry Jenkins were

being dumped in this embarrassing public way that so

far it seems he has been. Are

you saying in your discussions

give an indication he would be

interested in the job? He talks

about it now that it's an

obvious thing, that he needs to

put up his hand to break the deadlock. No, none of my

discussions with Rob Oakeshott

ah Anthony Albanese did he ever

indicate he wanted to be the

speaker. You talk about the

High Court might have to get

involved in this. It's not

really a case - can't you make

informal arrangements, agreeing

to a pairing arrangement,

whether with an independent or a major party? The opposition

doesn't want to be part of any kind of contrivance that sir

couple vents the constitution,

whether it's informal or

formal. That is why I have

asked Anthony Albanese to get watertight constitutional advice advice about how the speakership can be handled.

That is the responsibility of

the government, as they are

forming government, it's not

really the responsibility of

the opposition to get that

advice and it's not really the

responsibility of the

opposition to ensure that the legislation

legislation we are passing is

valid. We don't want to get

into a peculiar situation where

the opposition is blamed have chosen to govern, they the government's have chosen to govern, they have sought and received a

commission. This new idea that

the opposition could be

responsible for failure in the

parliament is quite

it's of a piece with the

government's new claim that because they haven't got

majority status they don't have to keep any of their

pre-election promises, whether

they are the carbon tax, the

Curtin detention centre, the detention centre at Cape York,

which they bald happen, now they which they bald facedly said happen, now they are saying,

all bets are off, we want a

blank cheque to break all our promises, including the opposition might be responsible if the parliament if the parliament doesn't work

Fair crack of the chip, the

government is responsible for

the parliament, they want to be

in government. If they in government. If they can't

stand the heat, they should

hand over the government to the opposition, we would be quite

happy to make the parliament

work if they can't. Finally on

the question of speaker, you

are saying you will only

operate on the pair arrangement if

you won't put it into place for

an indeed? We have indicated

we are happy to keep our

agreement with the government,

but that agreement obviously

has to be constitutionally

valid and hopefully we will

hear this week what the advice

of the government is in

materials of constitutional

validity. It is much easier to pair a member of the Labor

Party with the Liberal Party,

it's very hard to pair an independent, because who do you

pair them with? If they pair them with? If they vote them with the opposition, if with the government,

they vote with the opposition, they vote with

do we pair them with the

government? It is a much more

complicated arrangement. The opposition doesn't want to be

might be constitutionally part of any arrangement that

invalid. Malcolm Turnbull has been given shadow

Communications Ministerment how

much flexibility will he have

to rework the Coalition's

policy? The Coalition's policy

was the right policy for the

election. It was $6 billion, using fibre optic cable, using wooirls and satellite to ensure wooirls

Australians were connected to broadband. Malcolm Turnbull's job will be to do two things:

Number 1, to expose the fact the government's national broadband network is broadband network is without a

cost benefit analysis, without

a business plan, a $43 billion of taxpayers money to build

essentially a white elephant.

In comparison, he will be

promoting the Coalition's

policy. ImI'm sure there will

be refinements to all Coalition

and, if necessary, policies over the coming months

took a good suite of policies

and, if necessary, years. We to the election

to the election and a good

team, and that's why we did

extremely well in the election.

Let's not forget, we went from

looking look losing 22 seats 9

months ago to having more seats

and more primary votes than the

Labor Party. There's no Labor Party. There's no point

jumping our policies now. We

need to refine them and improve them with ongoing

circumstances, and that is one

of Malcolm Turnbull's roles.

You say you took the right policy to the you will refine it. What's happened in the meantime? Policy circumstances change.

What has changed in four

weeks? Nothing has changed in

four weeks, except the

government has decided to break

all its promises, whether it's

the Citizens Assembly, the Curtin detention centre, Cape York detention centre or the

carbon tax. How does that

entitle you to break your promise and change your

broadband policy? We haven't.

What I'm saying is in 2013, the election lasts that long,

you wouldn't expect policies in

2010 to be precisely the same

in 2013. Refining means

ensuring our policies remain

fresh, up to date with existing circumstances and picking up

the aspirations and hopes of

the Australian people. They haven't changed in four weeks,

but that's not to say they won't change in three and any other suggestion would won't change in three years,

be quite absurd. That will apply to climate change as

well, I presume, because

Malcolm Turnbull is saying that

he still sthis there should be

a carbon tax, a market based

there in the party room for approach? We haven't changed there in the party room for his

our policy on a carbon tax, we

don't support it. Neither don't support it. Neither has

Malcolm Turnbull changed his

approach. We don't support a sneaky arrangement through the emissions trading scheme to tax

the Australian people. We support a direct action plan

that we took to the election,

which would have achieved the

same cuts in emissions as the

government's non-policy, which

was junked for the Citizens supports our direct action on

climate change and we have not

changed our policy in relation

to to a bats. Because the

the Greens, they have announced government is in alliance with

they will have a carbon tax,

they have removed Penny Wong

from the environment portfolio

because the Greens demanded it,

and put her in finance. They

have also junked other policies. I'm not sure the

Greens would necessarily

support the massive expanse of

the detention centre at Curtin,

which the Labor Party lied

at caper,, which the Labor about before the

Party lied about before the

next election, but they are

some things that will test the new Green Labor Government. Malcolm

Malcolm Turnbull says his Malcolm Turnbull

position hasn't changed, he

still supports a carbon price.

Is he being stubborn, sticking

with a question that lost him the leadership? They are

questions you shut put to

Malcolm Turnbull, who is more

than capable of answering him.

He crossed the floor on the

you can do in the Liberal emissions trading scheme, which

Party, we are

faceless men and factional

bovver boys. The opposition

will not support a carbon tax

or the mining tax. Party wants to increase the

mining tax and the carbon tax and the Greens want to ensure that occurs. They have jumplged

they are Citizens Assembly

policy and think that being in minority government means they

don't have to keep any

promises. They want to seek a commission to form a government

and Julia Gillard is

responsible for ensuring those

election policies she took to the

Abbott said yesterday there's a

lot of anger and disappointment

in the party about the way the

election was decided. Is it time to move on from that? Barrie, it wouldn't be human

nature for us not to be disappointed. Of course, we

will move on to being an

effective opposition and an

alternative government. As

Michael Stutchbury points out,

we could at any time form a

government through by-elections

or independents changing their

mind, therefore

government through our policies

and our team. But we also have

to do our job, which which is

to hold the government to

account. If we weren't pursuing

the government for its

failures, as we have for the

last three years, the losers from that would be the

Australian taxpayers. The

democratic system works on the

basis of an adversarial parliament. Julia Gillard wants

to usher in an age of Aquarius,

which I used to think

song, but she thinks is a

government policy, but we will

not buy a consensual parliament

where the taxpayer is the loser. Bob Brown

morning he wants to overturn Kevin Andrews ail about

euthanasia and give the territories the same right as

the states to decide for

themselves on the issue of euthanasia. How do you think

that will go down? The last

time we had a vote on euthanasia, I voted in favour of

haven't changed my mind. I

assume it would continue with a

conscience vote on that matter.

Bob Brown raising the issue of euthanasia is the kind of

issues he will be raising. I

assume he will raze death

duties, another Greens policy,

inheritance tax, another Greens

policy, as he has raised use nicea. This is the shambles

that will be the 4 3rd parliament. Rather than

focusing on the economy or on the Australian standard of

living, the Greens will ensure

in their alliance with the Labor rabbits down every hole and I

will be very concerned with the

4 3rd parliament means that

Australia is worse off in three

years, rather than better off, because of the government we have, which

appears to be going from bad to

worse under Julia Gillard.

Christopher Pyne, thanks for

your time this morning. It's a

pleasure. Who better to hold the Who better Who better to hold the

government to account here than Malcolm Turnbull, who is

restored to the opposition

frontbench as shadow frontbench as shadow Minister

for communications. We have

some great new people coming

into the shadow ministry. Very

few of us can put up our hands

and say we are technical

boffins. I'm passionately in

favour of broadband, I'm a notorious

notorious internet junkie, I love it.

Malcolm is a person with

immense talents, he immense talents, he has a Dr Who-like capacity to

regenerate. This is going to

be the absolute focus of the

political battle over the next

18 months or so. They are

proposing to spend $43 billion

of taxpayers money on a project

that they say will result in an asset worth asset worth $43 billion, yet they have provided no evidence, no financial analysis, no business case, no financial


What Tony Abbott should do

is give Malcolm Turnbull a real

job, a job that is about

building the nation, a job that is about a positive approach,

not a destructive approach. He

knows when a business case

stacks up and when it doesn't. Malcolm is

isn't lent, a very charismatic

character. I support the

later, that's it. Do you want

to be interest treasurer? I'm

happy being the communications

shadow, and I'm delighted

have that role. No one will be

happier than I am if he succeeds magnificently in succeeds magnificently

succeeds magnificently in this shadow portfolio. It was

happy families, I'm pleased to

say. You don't get paid any

more, you just get to work a

lot harder. I raised the issue of ugt nice Christopher Christopher Pyne and Bob Brown

brought it up on meet the press

this morning. That was a

taking away of the democratic

rights of the people of the two territories. The polls show very strong support for

euthanasia. It won't bring in

euthanasia but it will restore

the rights of the Territorians

same as everybody in the to legislate for ute nicea, the

states. He is not going to

waste his opportunities. No,

and Christopher Pyne was a disingenuous saying it was more

that will happen in the evidence of the evil things

Laborline Greens alliance

because this is the sort of thing that the new parliament will allow, whoever is in

government. If Abbott were in

government, the Greens could

still do these things. He will

try this on. If he it does, it

will be a conscience vote. Is

that how Julia Gillard would

handle it, making it a

Labor handled it last time. Bob conscience vote? It's how

Brown, by bringing this up at

the get go, is blasting the

major parties out of party political positions,

because it is a conscience

vote, with every MP voting for

themselves. It's a hell of a

way to start the new parliament. On the broader

economic issues, he's not

pushing as hard on the mining pushing as hard on the mining

tax?. He has been saying, they

would rather the original 40%

tax, but they will

being the way forward. He's

trying to put all his taxes in

can't the carbon tax basket. You

with the mining tax now? I can't see anything happening

don't think the government

wants to renegotiate it, they

have made the deal with Marius

Kloppers, he said the deal is

the deal, he doesn't want to

reopen it. The issue is how

much revenue do you get out of

it? One line is that it is far

more generous to the big mining

companies, including BHP, than

the government has let question will be: You have the

Don Argus as part of the review

of getting the fine details,

but we are in the dark about revenue implications and how it

fits into the tax summit or the

tax forum or the tax

conversation, as Wayne Swan

puts it, that is due to be held

at the insistence of the

country independents by mid

next year. There is still a lot

of uncertainty about what is

finally the state of it. The

smaller miners who are not

party to the deal already in the years of the independents, Treasury thinks they got it trying to change the deal, and

right, and it was an elegant

tax they designed for Kevin Rudd, but it didn't get sold

the right way. Let's talk

about the speaker's position. about

Whenever the suggestion is made

to Rob Oakeshott that it's ego

driven, he bringsles about

that. This isn't about me and

some out of control ego, this

is trying to unlock this

situation that is facing the

parliament on day 1. I would

hope everyone thought that through with the through with the parliamentary reform process. There Liberal and Labor Party

officials when we put it

together. I am deeply concerned

now that that seems to have

gone out of the window for a

cheap political stunt on

of the parliament in a week's

time. Really, we are almost in

a situation that, if not me,

this afternoon whom? He this afternoon whom? He seems

to imply that this was

understood all along, the way

to break the deadlock was to

give the position to an independent. independent. Yet Christopher

Pyne is saying it wasn't part

of the discussions. I on this I Pyne and Labor privately has

grave reservations about the

workability. There was no

was interested in the indication that Rob Oakeshott

speakership, they were asked about ministries about ministries and

speakerships, and the ministry

he was. It will be difficult.

If it comes off and they can

pair his vote, you have to ask

in advance, you can't vote, but

how would you have voted so we

know who to pair against you?

That may work on a key piece of legislation, but if you are

having a back and forth, with

divisions called and he's people being thrown

trying to add screwed indicate,

and everyone has to anticipate

his vote, it will be a mess. I can't work out why he wants can't work out why he wants to

do it. Some people say it's so

he can re'certain his

independence. Because you of

what you describe, he would be

indicating how he would would

vote. These guys have to be

across every issue before the parliament. You can have lobbyists lobbying their ears

off, they will have

on everything. I can't figure

out why he would want to do the

speaker's job on top of that.

How will he take it if he doesn't get it? That's the

big question. He would want the

spirit of the deal to be

adhered to, but I see no signs

from Labor or from Christopher

Pyne just now that they

wouldn't adhere to the idea of

pairing the speaker's vote with

a vote from the other main

party, which is what it says in

that the deal that was written. Is

vagaries of being un that subject to the same

constitutional, because it

gives the speaker a vote. I

think the constitution comes

down to a discretionary vote.

What about Harry? You might

have seen the photo of Harry

bailing up the Prime Minister

at Ozzy's cafe, and he is

saying, you have a perfectly

good speaker. He was no

guarantee to get it again, a

few people inside Labor didn't

think that Harry shaped wasn't a guarantee he was going

to be returned. Clearly it

wasn't part of the deal with the country independents,

seriously consider the offer of because Rob Oakeshott did

the ministry in the Labor the

Cabinet. A lot of people are a bit put off by that rambling

ugly/beautiful speech he gave

when he and Tony Windsor came

across to Labor, as to it's a

bit hard to get get a handle on

how a speaker trying to impose

a new political paradigm on two

recalls trant old paradigm

political parties, would turn

further into acosor not. We

could have a Time. Andrew Wilkie doesn't

like the principle of the

idea. It's not my place to

criticise him. All I can say is

that I wouldn't accept such a position. There

position. There are real risks

in independents going inside

the tent, whether they are

accepting Cabinet positions or

a speaker's role bass as you talk some of your capacity to speak talk on such roles some of your capacity to speak

out. Then again, as Tony

Abbott says, that might be a

good thing when you are trying to keep your electorate

together. The NBN, and Malcolm

Turnbull's position and Tony Abbott has implied that through this process this

might be a way for him to get into government without another election. Here is Tony Abbott.

I think that's what we should

be doing with someone like

Malcolm Turnbull in charge of

communications policy, in

charge of exposing the waste

and extravagance inherent in the government's broadband

plan, that becomes a prospect. I won't be pushing

the government out of power

over one particular issue or on

another. Why would they

identify this issue, when it's the one that Tony Windsor identified as the most

influential? I find it hard to

see how the NBN broadband would

be the issue on which the

country independents switch

from Labor to the Coalition,

because really the NBN is

probably one of the main

policies that swung the

independents over to put Labor

in power. I think ta that's

unlikely but it is

to put Turnbull into the main attack dog on the NBN, because

this is a very risky project.

You might recall, during the debate about the black hole in their costings,

one of the debates was, if the

opposition doesn't go ahead

with the NBN, they don't have

to borrow as much money as the

government and the interest

payments fall on the public

debt. There was an argument

about whether the rate of

interest should be 4.9% or 5.8%

many of debate, when you consider the

whole NBN doesn't go on the

government bottom line because

the government maintains it's a

commercial venture, this will

be a boon for the government and it won't and it won't go on to the

bottom line. One of the figures

moves the government has made has been to shift the spending

on the NBN to the bush, which

is far less profitable and they

can't answer the question about

cross subsidies, whether the

city is cross subsidising the bush, so the commercial nature

of the scheme is being drained, there a commercially successful

venture. They are the sorts of arguments Malcolm Turnbull will

put, but at the same time it

this policy. I sound as if he will be tweaking

Turnbull is a good choice for

the job, he will make the

arguments cogently. Tony Abbott

might have been setting the

high jump bar for a potential rival. However well he makes

the arguments, it's unlikely he

will bring the government down

on this one issue. The task of

crafting an alternative policy

longer will become harder, because the

the more of the NBN will be

rolled out, it will be an

actuality that you are dealing

with, not an idea. While he can

make the cost benefit argument, the thing will be there in

ground. We will get to the

point where you can't reverse

it. You think of the stimulus spending, at the start it

seemed like a wonderful idea, all the primary school

spending. By the time the

election came around, even

though Australia was one of the

few industrialised countries few industrialised countries

not to go through the global been a huge plus for the

government, they couldn't sell

that because the opposition had

done an effective done an effective job on the

waist of the primary school

policy. Turnbull can make a lot

of political points, there of political points, there are

a lot of accidents waiting to

happen in the NBN. I don't

think you can turn the kintry

independents, but by the time

of the next election there will

be problems, it won't be a commercial venture and the opposition not that bad, it was dreadfully

sold by the hills, but there's

a lot of gains that Turnbull

can make on this. Are you

saying they wasted the

opportunity to talk

economy because of the schools stimulus? Did they really try?

How often did we hear that they

are presiding over the

strongest economy in the

world? In week 3 of the

campaign before they started

pushing that. Week 2 was wiped

out by leaks, week 1 was

warm-up leak. On the final

to their strongest points,

Julia Gillard's strongest point was, "Elect Tony Abbott and we

will return to Work Choices.".

Labor were in paralysis for the

first four or five months, and

Tony Abbott filled that with

his campaign against the

failings of the school halls program and the pink batts

program and basically manage to

make that Labor's economic

legacy, rather than the good things that had also happened

because of the crisis spending.

When they got around to talking about the economy, it was almost too late, he had already filled the vacuum, sort filled the vacuum, sort of in

the same way that the unions

filled the vacuum about Work

Choices, and by the time John

Howard got up to fighting back, it was all over red rover in

that campaign. That's because

there were a lot of truths in the opposition position. The

stimulus spending had a small

through amount of getting Australia

through the recess, it didn't

make that much of an impact, other things were the strength

of the

lot of people would argue, at

least Labor had a point to

make. It goes to the

effectiveness of the opposition

campaign on waste that the government couldn't make

the prime- His biggest thing

was to concentrate on the scare

campaign, that eventually

contributed to Kevin Rudd's

downfall, and now the issue is

back and it's been reframed by

do Marius Kloppers from BHP. We

initiative will eventually do believe that such a global

come, and we do believe that

when it does come Australia

will have needed to act

maintain its of it coming, in order to

maintain its competitiveness. No government relishes telling

consumers that things need to

cost more. But in this case

there really is no easy answer. You have to have a

carbon price if you are going

to give business certainty

about investment into the

future, so Mr Kloppers is more

or less in the same area, because it's common sense.

It's all very well for

companies like BHP, with

international operations, if we

put extra taxes on production

in Australia, they just move their production offshore.

Lenore, what really happened

this week? In a funny way, the

flexibility on this debate

might find a way to get through

the political impasse, because the big problem with the emissions trading scheme was

for how much you want to bring that because it set the target

emissions down upfront, you

couldn't vary that over time. That's what was the big

turn-off for the Greens, they

said, that target is too weak

so we can't be part of the

scheme. If you change the

carbon tax arrangements and

have an interim carbon tax or

some hybrid, you can start

slowly, like Labor, and

business will Dowdly want to

do, but the Greens have the

comfort that, if, as they hope,

somewhere down the track we get

a tougher international agreement that requires Australia to do change and do more. It might be

the thing that bridges the gap

that actually means we can get

through the political impasse.

Does that isolate Tony Abbott? Definitely the Greens

position was a cynical position

that they shot down the

emissions trading, and it meant

there was no legislation went

through, and their vote went up

at the election and they

managed not to shoulder managed not to shoulder any

responsibility for that. It is

a remarkable thing that now the

two voices strongest on this is the world's biggest mining

house and the Greens both pushing it. It shows the failure of the rest of the

political system to really

grapple with the issue. Kloppers putting - Labor's

emissions trading scheme is

dead, we won't get that. We are

more likely to get a small

trading scheme, which would be

large in terms of its sector,

but confined to a smaller

number of power generators.

Something you can build on.

Starting at a lower level. Or

you can do the rest by regulation. A carbon bring it in at a small level,

to get us in the game and get

the structure up. In the long

term, after the rest of term, after the rest of the world gets its act together, world gets its act together, we

could be part of that. It is a big thing to have BHP saying we

should have a carbon tax. What

it does for Labor and Julia

Gillard, it makes them look

further weak on this. She is

still trying to build - is she

leading or following on this

issue? Phil, what do you

think? A lot of people

think? A lot of people in

Labor I have spoken to who have

a case of the irits, where was

Marius Kloppers six when the consensus was evaporating, after Copenhagen

and Abbott moved in and

destroyed Labor politically

over this, and everyone ran for the his

including Rudd and the gang of

four. With Michael's point,

yes, Gillard is yes, Gillard is grateful, no

doubt, that Kloppers has come

in swingings, sew you have the

Greens and BHP on one side, and

that goes back to the interview

on Saturday, give this to the

parliament, this whole

get involved. It's almost as

though it's not an issue for the Labor Party , it's for the Parramatta to sort out. That's

right. They are grateful he has

come back in. I think Turnbull

too is picking up, if the

consensus is to change back to

where it was, Turnbull won't

miss out either. He's not

shying away. He knows his

colleagues are cranky, but he's

not backing off. Kloppers made

the obvious point that we are advantaged by

rather than later. Tony Abbott

did a very good job of painting

the failure at Copenhagen as

being everybody in the doing nothing, therefore if

Australia did something we

would be ahead of everybody

else. In fact, Copenhagen failed

failed to legally bind

everybody into a big international deal, but

countries all around the world

are acting, China in particular

is doing quite a lot. So what

Kloppers is saying is if we

don't start doing something domestically, we domestically, we will be behind

the 8 ball and it will be more expensive. expensive. That's what the

Howard government was advised and the Rudd Government, now it seems to be getting play

in the debate. This is the

area where you could get

forward movement from the parliament.

parliament. The danger is, if

you have a committee trying to

get a policy, it will always be

a donkey in the end that you

come up with. You don't have a

lot of confidence that out of this fracturing power, that you will get a

sensible policy, particularly

when the government doesn't

show any ability to lead, to

say what it wants to It is all good at the moment at

the conceptual stage, everyone

can be in agreement, but when

we get down to the exact same

debates as we did with the ETS,

about who gets compensation and

how much, all the nitty-gritty

will be as contentious as it was last time. Talking Pictures coming up shortly. Kevin Rudd's body language at

the swearing-in ceremony was

raised with him at a news conference. At the

swearing-in ceremony you looked

pained and uncan comfortable,

why was that? I love the psychoanalyses of how I look.

What's your qualification? Do

you have, like David Marr, have

a PHD in the discipline? How long did the ceremony long did the ceremony go for?

Five hours. Did you study

everyone's faces as to whether they maintained gaze of unmitigated engagement

with every scintilla of it?

Probably not, probably not. Is this working out? I think it

will. He's straining to behave.

Obviously there will be a lot

of attention on him, but

eventually we will get bored

with him going overseas, if he

just does his job as a Foreign Minister. He got the job he

wanted. Yes. More from our panel Phil Coorey, Michael Stutchbury and Lenore Taylor

shortly, but here's Michael

Bowers with Talking Pictures. Pictures with the blogger for 'The 'The Australian', Jack the

Insider. You reckon he knows enough of the standing orders

to do a decent job in the speaker's chair, are Rob

Oakeshott? He loves being in

front of the parliamentary cameras, sit on the

crossbenches, no one will see you. Get up in the big

chairment It's good to know

the blood nut gene survives

death. They say hair to grow after death so, that

would explain that. Then, in

parliament no one can hear you scream. That's at least 17

minutes worth there. It's

strange to say Harry Jenkins is

better than somebody else, but

there you go. Ironically, the

best way to shut him up is to

make him speaker. Making him

speaker will make him speak

less. There's a beaut irony in

this. Tony Abbott appointed Malcolm Turnbull to the opposition frontbench, but he will bandwagon trying to wreck the NBNment He's a human NBNment He's a human wrecking

ball, he's yesterdayy to smash

into things, sitting in front

of the fake

leap off his desk and knock

things over, straight through

walls. Tear out the wiring. Do his leader's bidding. Beautiful David Pope, Malcolm

impossible. You can almost hear

the music playing in the

background. "Your mission, should you should you choose to accept it, is to demolish the national

broadband network or your political capital, whichever

comes first." That would have to be the oldest computer I

have ever seen. It's

wonderful, Kevin 747, he's

back. He's back and he's

gone. It was a drive-by

swearing in. "Yes, I swear.

Right, take me to the

airport." You can imagine the celebrations at the RAAF base.

He's flying on our national

carrier. That must

for some of the cabin crew

there. It will now be their problem. Jon Kudelka - I think

this could be a possible

Walkley next year, Kevin Rudd is released back into his

natural habitat. "Be free. Fly,

my pretties:" Racking up the

miles, where it should be. The

photographs at the swearing-in ceremony, doesn't he look

happy. Like a cow eating

prickles. Who did the seating

arrangements where they arrangements where they said,

"Kevin, you sit next to Simon Crean." They both looked

awkward. It's the corner where

the ex-leaders sit. I can

the rest of them going, "I

don't want to sit next to him." In the end, Simon Crean got the

job. He had to be there,

because he had to get to the

airport. He was first cab off

the ranks. Can I go first, get

this over and done with. It's a

wonder he stayed for the group shot. This shot. This is Kevin adjusting Conroy's shot. This is

Conroy's tie. Imagine taking fashion tips from Harry High Pants himself. It's paternalistic. You have left a

bit of space between the and the tie, "Fix it up, young

man." "Julia can't do your tie for

for you." "Taxi! " Quentin is

down here. One must keep one's son-in-law a fair distance from

oneself. Wee Billy, get up the back. Arbib has an enormous

set of teeth, I've never

noticed it. The man could eat an

an appal through a tennis

racquet. They are like piano keys. I don't know he has that

much to smile about, but he's

doing it anyway. Jack, it's a

great pleasure having you on.

Thanks very much, Mike.

Thanks, guys. During the week,

the government announced new

arrangements for detention

centres with a new facility

near we pa, increasing the

capacity at Curtin in Western Australia, the Premier is not

impressed with the way WA is

being treated I believe the attitude of the Federal

Government is, put them in Western Australia, out of sight, out of mind. I say right thing is to share the

burden across Western

Australia, and the Commonwealth is using Western Australia as a

prison camp. It's an ongoing

issue. I think it will be a

while before the East Timor

solution comes off, if it ever does. This isn't something Julia Julia Gillard can punch or to a committee, she made it an issue

in the campaign she has to do something

something about it. Timor is the responsibility of Minister for Immigration, not for foreign affairs, as Kevin

Rudd pointed out. But he will

have to to grease the wheels.

Over the next couple of years,

if the boats keep coming and we

have to keep expanding onshore

processing in rural and

regional Australia, if they get

the asylum seekers, it will be

a running sore for Julia

Gillard. Talking about the

relationship between Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard and Tony

Abbott and Malcolm Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull, but the

be watched is the one between Joe

Joe Hockey and Andrew Robb.

Julie Bishop was asked about

that on Lateline and was asked to explain what Ian Macfarlane

was up to. He was apparently