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) I thought I did. Do you like her? Now? And now?

we're not on the same planet. Now I know Come on. Hey! You didn't answer my question. About us? the cattle dogs make one mistake. On the farm, we even let (Barks)

But if they hurt the calves twice, and shoots them. Dad takes them out back (Whimpers) Come on, you big idiot. that it's gonna be your day. Some days you wake up just knowing Next time that happens to me, and go straight back to sleep. I'm gonna roll over and not enough time SONG: # There's too much choice # To find what's right get down # Aiming for your head, # You're the only one in town! # CC

Good morning. Welcome to

Insiders. Wednesday started

like any other for Julia

Gillard. She is always on the

look-out for examples of

WorkChoices failing the

fairness test and on this particular morning she felt

she'd spotted another one. Good

morning, John, it's Julia

Gillard. Lovely to be able to

ring you from Parliament House

in Canberra! I was ringing

about this situation with the

Lilac City Motor Inn and the

AWA there, one of Mr Howard's

individual agreements. The important thing is recognise

here is, this is a template

agreement, a standard

agreement, for right across the

motels and accommodation

industry. But as they say, timeing in politics is

everything. This was the

headline the very next day,

another company had underpaid

workers, only this time the

company was owned by Kevin

Rudd's wife. Look, you know,

I'd be dis honest with you if I

said it's not embarrassing. Of

course it is. This was

obviously an honest mistake.

She sought to rectify this as

soon as the information was

able to her. Therese Rein was

in London when the story broke.

She flew into Sydney yesterday

morning and she and her husband

then flew into Brisbane where

she and her husband faced the

media. We had a kiss and a

cuddle. That's important. We

will be helding home soon.

Therese is going to have a

snooze. The last few days have

raised some different kinds of

questions. I know I'm immensely

proud of what I've been doing

for the last 18 years and I

have loved doing that and I

still love doing that, but I

think the Australian people may

be concerned that there might

be a conflict of interest, and

I don't want them that to get

in the way. I don't have to

make a decision between my

husband and my career! But what

I need to do is make sure that

what I'm doing is not gonna get

in the way of the Australian

people having a really

confident choice. This affair

has thrown up all sorts of

renegade issues, most notably

the role of women in society

and more specifically the role

of a Prime Minister's

spouse. Part of the reality

we're dealing with here is this

is the age of professional

women who run their own

companies, who have their own

lives. They're not simply

appendages of middle aged

men. He should've used a different expression. This is

all about choice. I don't criticise any choices that are

made by women. I was a

stay-at-home mum, there was a

period of time where I was at a

stay at home and he fully

supported me, and he has always

supported me. Kevin, I know, is

certainly not ... um ...

wanting to put anyone down. He

was just wanting to say that

I'm not his appendage.

(Laughs) But on reflection the

politically convenient Rudds have taken the

decision, Therese Rein has announced she will be selling

the Australian arm of the

company. Plenty of grist for

the panel's mill this morning

and for Paul Kelly. And today

marks the 40th anniversary of

the referendum that allowed

Aborigines to be countsed as

citizens, so 40 years on how

are we going? Our program guest

for Indigenous Affairs Mal this morning is the Minister

Brough. First, for the latest

news, it's good morning Katrina

Blowers The wife of Opposition

Leader Kevin Rudd is selling

off the Australian arm of her business. Therese Rein said last night it had been a

difficult decision, but the

debate about a conflict of

interest had become acute.

Earlier this week, it was

revealed workers at her

underpaid after being moved to employment company were

common law contracts. Politicians are being urgeed to

rethink the approach to Aboriginal affairs because there's been little improvement

in living conditions in the

past 40 years. The church group

Catholic Religious Australia is

calling for a new national body

to represent Indigenous

Australians. It says an elected

forum is needed to help Aboriginal communities work

together. And in rugby union,

Australia has defeated Wales in

the opening Test at the Olympic

stadium in Sydney. The Welsh

led 17-0 midway through the

first half. A late try by

replacement forward Stephen

Hoiles helped Australia escape

with a 29-23 win. I will be

back with another news update

at 11 o'clock. Thank you for

that. As hard as it is to

believe in retrospect, just

four decades ago, Aborigines

were not counted as citizens

but at a referendum in 1967, 40

years to the day, more than 90%

of Australians voted "yes" to

rectify the situation. There are ceremonies being conducted around Australia today to mark

the event. The Minister for

Indigenous Affairs Mal Brough

will be attending some of them

in Canberra as we speak, so

earlier this morning, I caught

up with him in our Parliament

House studio. Minister, good

morning and welcome. Good to be

with you. How much have we

really done as a nation in the

past 40 years to address the

root causes of Aboriginal

disadvantage? Well, it's a good

question and it's really in two

parts. In the cities and the major regional centre there is

has been enormous progress.

Today we actually have an

Aboriginal surgeon, which

would've been unthought of back

in 1967. There are hundreds,

thousands of Indigenous people that have been through

university, who've got houses

and all of the normal things

that rest of us take for

granted, jobs, trades, etc.

But then there is the other

side of the coin, and those in

the remote communities and

what's commonly known as the

long grass. In other words, the

fringes of town. There has been

I believe not just no progress,

but in some cases we've gone

backward s. In the most

graphic demonstration of that

is the failure on the 17 year

gap in life expectancy between

Indigenous and non-Indigenous

Australians? Again. It's in two

parts. We have about 450,000

people who identify as

Indigenous in this country and

about 150,000 live in the

circumstances I just explained,

the majority live in the

cities, and they have no reason why they shouldn't have the

same life expectancy as the

rest of us. They have to have

access I might add to

mainstream services. And in

some cases, there is still a

long way to go to achieve that

but it's the remote communities

that really need the

assistance. Why is this such a

significant problem? You've

been in office for 11 years. Is

it just too hard? No, it hasn't

been that at all. It is that

for the majority of the time

we've been in office, ATSIC had

the responsibility as an elected Indigenous body to actually look after the welfare

of the majority of Indigenous

people. It failed miserably.

That's why I'm totally opposed

as are most Indigenous people

to the Labor Party saying they

want to bring back another

elected body to take over the

responsibility which is mine as minister or whoever else might be in that place in the

government of the day. Don't

give your - abdicate your

responsibility as government

members to an elected body and

say, well, they failed. But

what have you done since ATSIC

departed the scene, what have you done to address specifically that

problem? There has been

enormous progress. In the last

budget we put in $750 million

worth of new money and extended

programs going to the heart of

the issues. I know the AMA will

say what you really need is a

huge injection into health. Can

I tell you, you often get a

health outcome, a social

outcome, educational outcome if

you address the holistic

problem. Through housing,

through financial management

and through producing social

norms, you create those

environments. We're doing these

sort of the things today in

Wadeye, in Tiwi, Hopevale,

we're talking to the people of

Galawinku. Almost $40,000 for

every man, woman and child,

$40,000 for every man, woman

and child who is a permanent

resident of the town camps of

Alice Springs was the amount of

money the Commonwealth put on

the table to try to dramatically turn around their

lives. There is a point here,

Barrie. In that case, that

money was rejected. And the

Commonwealth and the State and

the Territory Government s or

the wider population cannot do this unless some personal responsibility is taken by the

people who live in these

circumstances. We'll return to

Alice Springs in a moment. Just

on this 17-year gap , the Labor

Party says that that can be

closed in a generation. Do you

think that's achievable? Yes,

it is achievable. But not by

just saying it. We all know

about no child will live in

poverty by the year 1990. It's

a great thing to aspire to, but

I can start rattling off the

communities that have no police

in them. Therefore, the

children are at great risk.

Kalambura, more than 10% of the

male population has been

charged in the last two months

with child sex offences. Just

think about that for a moment.

We talk about helping people

with their health. We have circumstances prevailing in

communities which can be

stopped but you have to have

first of all law and order,

secondly, good governance and the housing that flows from

that then is maintained and

educational standards are also

attained. So it's no good just

making statements unless you

have the hard policy that

actually backs it up. I'm

interested to hear you saying that it is achievable. That it

can be done with the right

political will. Absolutely. Let

me give you Wadeye. This time

last year or just a little

earlier, back in March, that

community was rioting. They'd

destroyed 25 houses. One

Indigenous man speared another

Indigenous man. Young boys were

being hit over the heads with

hunks of wood. Today that's a

safe community which is lacking

at and is in fact buying its

own homes, school attendance is

up but not where I'd like it to

be and people are actually asking for jobs and turning

their lives around. That hasn't

happened in 20 years, it's

happened in one year and the

elders are driving that they

are regaining their position of importance in the community.

And they're leading their

communities. And that is just a

demonstration of what can be

achieved. The other aim of the

Labor Party is that they can

half the rate at which inl dij

news children die I before the

age of 5 and they can do that

in 10 years S that

possible? Again I believe it

can be done even quick hear than that, but community by

community. The one thing I have

learned is if you just try to

roll out a program, what

happens in the Tiwi Islands and its unique circumstances will

be entirely different to the

central desert or Arnhem Land

or Cape York. So you have to go

to each community, sit down

with the leadership, you have

to work on a holistic approach,

not targetting one or two

issues, but the whole issue. It

needs leadership, and it needs

direction, and it needs support

from the wider community. You

mentioned how much you spend on

Aboriginal health, but Ms

O'Donohue said during the week

that you plan to spend more on

the citizen ship test than you

do on Aboriginal health. She

was wrong on so many things she

said in the Great Hall the

other day. One of the problems

is what she said is that every

Australian should have the same

access as you and I do to the

hospital, dental services, the

child care services, the

employment services. And I have the National Indigenous Council

headed up by Sue Gordon who is

working right now to try and

give the State Government s and

the federal departments a

better plan to ensure that

occurs. They do not have to be

specific Indigenous programs.

We have to ensure that every

Australian has the right and

the capability to access the

services that are already

there. The specific Indigenous

programs need to be going where

there are no mainstream

services and they are into the

remote parts of this nation.

Maybe the citizenship test is

not the right comparison. What

about government advertising?

$127 million a year on average.

Do you spend more on government

advertising than you do on

Aboriginal health? That's just

wrong again. These sort of

rhetoric-type comments don't

actually help Indigenous people

get on. What do you spend on

Aboriginal health per

year? Once again, when people

say to me and when Indigenous

people talk to me and say "We

want to access whatever it may

be, a health outcome, an

educational outcome", they have

been conditioned to just look

at the Indigenous pot of money.

What makes an Indigenous person

which is more than two thirds

of the Australian Indigenous

population living in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, from being

able to access the mainstream

services, they are there as

well. The Aboriginal-specific

programs are on top of that. So

it is absolutely wrong for

anyone to make the accusation

that if you're operating out of

some of the suburbs of

Brisbane, such as Aspley, for

argument's sake, you must go to an Indigenous service. You go

to the local hospital and that

service must be proch eyeded in

a culturally sensitive way for

you. And so therefore when you

talk about Indigenous-specific

health measures you put an

apartheid overlay on it and that's wrong. You were talking

about wanting all indigenous

kids to speak English. The

Labor Party agrees with that in

principle of course, but how

will you achieve this? Surely

the key to this is ensuring

that they actually go to

school. Into the whole lot done

has been done on that either

over the years? No, I'm puting

a huge focus on that. I see too

many and I hear from too many

grandparents in Indigenous

communitys who say to me "Why

is it that the white authority,

the State and Territory

governments, do not treat us

the same as white families?"

And I ask the question "What do

you mean?" They say "You see a

coo white child not to go

school, the authorities take

action but when that happens

with a black child, no-one

does." The State Labor

Government in Queensland last

week signed a community pact

with the people of Mornington

Island with the lofty goal of

getting just 75% of Indigenous

kids to school. You have to

aspire to 100. People have

been saying that to this government now for 11

years? No, they haven't. I don't think people havely.ed

the scab off the problem at

all. People say you're kidding me, Indigenous children can't

speak English? Well, it's a

reality. We're doing practical measures things such as

building hostels up in the

Kimberley, improving the hos

tets in Darwin, putting money

into the Clontarf foundation,

more Indigenous scholarships,

more Indigenous hostel type

schooling situations with our

key schools in the major

cities. On top of that, we have

initiatives out into these

communities. People like the

Aussie Rules and the rugby

league stars, not just blowing

in, blowing out but having a

long-term association with the

AFL and the NRL, encouraging

and working with the schools.

And one other thing that we've

just started to initiate, which

the rest of us take for

granted, is that we are going

to have the national seniors

going to places like Daly

River, Wadeye, Hopevale and

working with the school

teachers, former school

teachers, helping put more resource, more human resources on the ground to help that

happen. We are doing a lot. But

we do need the States and

Territory Governments simply to

abide by the laws that they

have in place. I want to ask

you about the Northern Land Council decision that they've nominateed a site in the Northern Territory for a

Commonwealth nuclear waste

facility. For which they'll

receive around $12 million.

This is not a done deal,

though, that simply puts that

site in the mix with other

options? That's right. Would

you, though, be urging the

Federal Government to pick up

on this particular option

because of the benefit that

flows to the station? That's a

good by-product but this is a

decision for the traditional

owners. They've clearly made it

clear they they want to make

the site available. From all

information that I have through

the Northern Land Council, they

are looking at a better life

for themselves, and anything,

any economic benefit that is

going to be derived by remote communities I would fully

support. But not at the expense

of having a location which is

inappropriate for its geology

or anything else. Are you

satisfied that this is

genuinely the view of the

overwhelming majority of people

on the station, because Peter

Garrett has said that only a

handful were consulted? Look,

this is the sort of stuff you

get from Peter Garrett all the

time and from others. No matter

when I consult, consulted with

the Tiwis for 14 months and they did two years of consultation before they signed up with the Federal Government

for a 99-year leaseback. There

are always those that snipe

from the side and say not

enough consultation. You name

one circumstances for me which

requires a unanimous vote of

all of the participants in this

nation. It doesn't happen. But

how overwhelming do you think

the support is on the

station? Yesterday oral early

this week the NLC had its meeting out there. They went through all of its processes

and the traditional owners have

that made that decision. They

take a heck of a lot of

consideration in coming to

those decisions. And having

people like Peter Garrett who

perhaps haven't even spoken to

them making these assertions is

more about playing politics

with their lives and about the

whole issue than it is about

those people on the ground.

And speaking of politics, the news overnight that Therese

Rein has decided to sell the

Australian arm of her company,

do you think she did the right

thing? That's a decision for Mr

Rudd and Therese Rein. What I'm

more concerned about is the

double standards and the

hypocrisy that's applied here,

where if this circumstance had occurred with any other company, the Labor Party would've been in the Parliament

ripping them to shred shreds,

not giving them one moment to

be able to say this was as a

mistake. Just as they should be

apologising to the motel owner

whose reputation has been

trashed and business has been

damaged. That business doesn't

have a big human resources department to ensure they're

paying the right wages. I would

ask the Labor Party (a) to

apologise to that business and

(b) to be more circumspect

about how they deal with the

reputation of small business

people in this country. It looks as if you face a tough

fight in Queensland. The chances are that the Labor

Party will make significant

gains. Your seat is on about

6%. That's takeing into account

the Latham factor at the last

election. It's going to be

tough? It's going to be touch,

no doubt about that. We've all

known that for some time. I

think what we have a duty to do

is ensure that the Australian

public knows what our forward

agenda is, knows we can deliver

that forward agenda and knows

that the Labor Party not only

has inexperience but really has

no capacity to continue to

provide the good times that

Australians have enjoyed as far

as - my electorate has now 6.7%

unemployment. That's less than

half of what it was when I was

elected. Those are people and

families with jobs. That's what

this is all about. And a

coalition government can and

will continue to deliver that

sort of prosperity to the

people in my electorate and

around Australia. Mal Brough,

thanks for your time this

morning. Good to be with you,

Barrie.

Howard using the word

annihilation is going for the

fear yaktor. He is trying to

get people thinking there is

going to be a huge swing, 10,

12, 15 seats. By saying

annihilation he is thinking

some of them will change their

votes. It's a clever political

manipulation to language. He

wants us to be afraid, be

afraid, just like a wife who

sees that her husband's

straying, and she lets him know

that things might not be all that good out there when you

get there. John Howard has got

quite a few rabbits stashed

away and quite a knew hats! I

think there is some strength in

Howard's team that have been

there for so long. As he points

out, there is also a weakness,

there is a lack of freshness.

And it's a pity he couldn't have brought in some new

talent. You could counter the

youth and novelty factor of the

Labor Party with a change of

leadership. Put Peter Costello

in? No, I don't think so. Oh

okay. I think Malcolm

Turnbull. They're not gonna

change horses at this

stage. The fact we know who

they are, we've seen what they've done, nothing terrible

has happened to the economy in

the the last 11 years, if they

lose that advantage, why

wouldn't we go for the change?

If they keep the discussion on

the economy rather than society

they're on good ground. I'm the

same age as John Howard so I'm defensive about his capacities

of his age. I don't think he is dementing. I think he is very

smart but they is very conservative and his ideas are

old ideas. You get to a point

after 11 years that it's the

law of diminishing returns. I

don't know if Labor is holding

its breath to hang onto its

lead. They'd be pretty stupid

to sit back and just think

"We're gonna win ." There

could be something that could

blow this out of the water as

people slowly start to realise

what they're getting themselves

into. A lot can happen in six months. One thing that came

through there is that they feel

that what the Prime Minister

said to the party room was

transparent, a tactic designed

to create fear? I think

they're right about that.

That's why it was fed out

through the party room

briefing. There was no - this

was clearly a message to be got

out and it was a message to the

wider electorate. Annihilation

Prime Minister - I don't think is a very strong word. And our

it's the sort of language and

tactic that we would

necessarily put down to him. He

is normally a very positive

player. I think this was a

strong negative tactic to put

out there and Tony Abbott

revealed that later in the week

when he said "We just want to

make sure the Australian

electorate isn't sleepwalking,

that they are walking into this

with open eyes, that there

could be a change." It's all about, wake up electorate. Where is the scare

tactic in the sense that "If

you vote me out, you get Kevin

Rudd", a lot of people say

"We've already factored that

in!" Rather than being

manipulative in his language,

he was probably too candid. One

of the problems is longevity is

both a strength and a weakness

and everyone ebb focused on the

weakness side, and suggested he

should step down as leader. I

notice in a Readers Digest poll

of who is most trusted by the

Australian people, Peter

Costello comes 94, one behind

Paul Keating, who went out in a

landslide at the '96

election! That's treasurers! I

tend to agree more with Brian

here. I think that the notion

that this was a set-up and this

was a script is too cute by

half. There are occasions when

the reality - when you look at

the poll numbers, you have to

call it annihilation. You can't

be panglosi an and say this is

shiny. Strictly speaking,

annihilation means total

destruction? Well, it would.

At the moment, they're out.

That's the reality. Why would

you say that's cunning and

clever to point out what is the

truth? It's the degree of the

language I'm talking about.

Yes, there is no point saying

"We can come back, we're going

to win, it's fine", that's

true. I think he was sort of saying, yes this is what the

pouls are saying and it's true,

but I think the tone - the use

of that language was designed

to create the headlines it

created. I think by deeming it

cunning and deeming it a script

and a strategy is trying to

play to "Oh this is yet another

cunning, tricky Howard thing"

and I think it's wrong. Let's

get Paul Kelly's take on this

now, political commentator with

the 'Australian'. Good morning. What do you think the Prime Minister was trying to do when

he used that term,

annihilation? I think it was a

tactic, and I must confess

upfront that I'm not terribly

impressed by this as a tactic.

I don't think it makes a lot of

sense for a Prime Minister to start talking about his

government facing the prospect

of annihilation. Now, I know

what John Howard was trying to

do here. As Tony Abbott said,

he wants to stop people from

sleepwalking into a change of

government. And that's fair

enough. In is akin to the

political version of electric

shock treatment. But frankly,

the current can go both ways

here. Who got the shock? I

think the Australian people

know that they're looking at

the prospects of a potential change of government. People

are aware of that. And the risk

for John Howard here is that he

might reinforce the feeling in

the community that there is

likely, in fact, to be a change

of government, and it also

undermines the idea of a Prime

Minister in command and in

authority, and frankly, I think the impression was conveyed

that there was a sense of panic

in the government. And of

course, it set off some

speculation in the media about

whether the Liberal Party got

it right when they stayed with

John Howard and resisted Peter

Costello. Certainly, it's Paul

Keating's view that they did

the right thing by sticking

with John Howard. For Howard to

voluntarily leave would be, in

my opinion, for those of us in

the professionalism of the top

end of it all, an act of high cowardice and he will not do

that. Do you believe there

would be enough bottle in the

rest of the party to bring on a

challenge against him? What,

and have deputy dawg out there

as the leader? It's

possible. He's completely,

charmless, that Costello. And

he is completely shame less, I

think it's fair to say! How do

you think the prnl and his

deputies are travelling

generally? I think the

government has a lot of

difficulties here. The point is

that Paul Keating was

absolutely right that this

discussion about leadership is

a completely phoney issue. John

Howard is going nowhere. He

wouldn't contemplate going

anywhere. The Newspoll

published in the 'Australian'

yesterday makes it quite cheer

that John Howard is far and

away the best leader for the

government at this stage. To be

fair to Peter Costello, he is

not suggesting anything to the

contrary here. I also did note

in that Newspoll that over the

course of the last fortnight

since the budget, the Labor

Party's lead on the primary

vote, which is the measure that

counts, has been cut back from

14 to 8 percentage points.

We'll have to see if that trend

is confirmed or not, but if

it's confirmed, that suggests

the government is make ing progress. The other point to

make is that you don't have a

single week that goes by

without some bad news for the

government. We have yakie Kelly

announcing --

we had Jackie Kelly announcing

at the end of the week she will

not reckon test her seat of

Lindsay. There is a great

symbolism involved in this. She

has become a symbol of the

great success of the Howard

Government from 1996 onwards in

terms of penetrating the Labor

base vote in the western

suburbs of the cities particularly Sydney and I think

a lot of people will look at

her departure and start to wonder whether or not this

signals the departure of John

Howard as well. Now, a big

breaking story overnight is

that Therese Rein has decided

to give up certainly the

Australian arm of her company.

How do you see that issue now?

This is a very big decision by

the Rudds and by Therese Rein,

a very big personal and

business decision. And of

course, we've never been in

this situation before, where

we've had the spouse of a potential Prime Minister having

to confront these sorts of

issues. I think what it shows

is the great determination of

the Rudds to clear the decks,

to remove any impediment

whatsoever to the Labor

campaign, to Kevin Rudd's

prospects of winning the

election. Some people will wonder whether or not this was

really necessary, but when you

consider that her business is

based very much on Federal

Government contracts, I think the judgment will be that she

did the right thing. I also

think there's some upside for

the Rudds in this because the

whole saga over the course of

the last two to three days has

been a chance for them to

showcase their own relationship

and their capacity to think

through the problem. The

impression has been left of a

modern husband dealing with a

modern wife with a very modern

problem. And I think in that

sense, there may well be an

upside for them. And that was

the dominant issue in the end

but before then, the issue was

the industrial relations angle.

How is that travelling? It

sure was. I think the

industrial relations angle was

quite important in this and I

think there is a message here

for the Labor Party. I think

the impression is increasingly

left at the moment that the

Labor Party is targetting and

demonising businesses

particularly small businesses

that negotiate AWAs. You will

recollect that when Kevin Rudd

first became leader of the

Labor Party, he framed his

attack on WorkChoices in terms

of family values. He said

WorkChoices was disrupting

family life and the family

situation. Now, the Labor

tactic has changed. It's

changed very much over the

course of the last month and

we've seen Labor become more

and more sucked into this

conflict with the business

community. I think there's a

touch of old-fashioned class

warfare in terms of Labor's

attack on businesses, and I

can't believe that this is not

having a damaging impact on

small business. The fact that,

of course, Therese Rein's

company was involved and was

exposed in terms of its own

problems simply highlights the

lesson and the moral for the

Labor Party here. I think it's

important for Labor to change

their tactics on this issue. Paul, thank you. We

have a small technical problem

here in the studio we need to

fix. Fran Kelly, Brian Toohey

and Piers Akerman will be back

in a few minutes. We'll go now

to Michael Bowers and his

regular segment, Talking

Pictures. I'm Michael Bowers,

pictorial editor with the

Talking Pictures this morning 'Sydney Morning Herald'. I'm

with cartoonist for the 'Sydney

Morning Herald' and the

Melbourne 'Age', Cathy Wilcox. Very interesting week in

politics. The Man of Steel as

we've known him for many years

is suddenly using words like

annihilation, sounding more

like the Marshmallow Man.

Perfection has made people feel

uncomfortable, this is his way

of turning it around and saying

I'm not the messiah, just a

very naughty boy! (Laughs)

Warren Brown has picked up on

the front he will all think he will miraculously pull some

rabbit out of the hat. We know

a politician is here to stay

when it's possible to depict

them with so few things that it

can be an identifiable rabbit

and all we have is the glasses

and the eyes, and we can tell

Kevin Rudd underneath without question that that is

there. The wonderful David Rowe

has got it sort of - he has

picked up on the thing where he

is not only included himself as

being old and tired but he is

sort of saying, hey, you guys

are too, Mr Downer and Mr

Costello. I love this scene of

these crusty old artistes. In

the make-up room. The Prime

Minister cannot seem to put a

foot right lightly, even when

he plans renovations, he wanted

to sppt spend $540,000 on

renovations in his private

dining room. Just imagine all

these dignitaries being elbow

to elbow, cheek by jowl, it just wouldn't be

comfortable! David Rowe has done a lovely little tart

humulier. That's the French

for humble pie. In this very

French decadent scene, nobody

draws decadence like David

Rowe. Bill Leak as he sometimes

does has moved the debate

forward to when they're losing

office perhaps, later in the

year. He has John pulling the

light bulb out. Anyone who has

ever lived in share

accommodation can totally

identify with that scene! This

was yours during the week. Bit

disturbing. Joe Hockey with no

clothes on! After copping it about Julia Gillard being

pretty and he only thought he

was being innocent saying that,

and I have no basis on which to

draw this, it's purely out of

my imagination. It's the old,

you know, fair game thing that

if he is gonna go starting to

talk about looks being

important, then I'm sorry ... I

have to take his clothes offer

and put him in front of a

mirror. Into Joe Hockey's lap

fell the information that one

of Kevin Rudd's wife's

companies were drawing up

common law agreement, not

AWAs. He turned on the radio,

looked to the heavens and said

"Thank you, God!" Because into

his lap, there was this lovely

story about the Opposition

Leader's wife, you know, doing

something bad, you know, talk about hoist by their own

petard! Things are hotting up

in Joe Hockey's seat of Sydney

with the announcement this week

that the ABC weatherman Mike

Bailey will run for that seat.

The ABC is a hotbed of leftie

commo pinkos! We have Mike

Bailey who is saying "There is

a fresh change about to sweep

through North Sydney,

concentrating on the lower half

of Joe Hockey." " Which I

don't really want to! Thanks

for talking to us this

morning. Thanks, Mike. Mike

and Kathy have comprehensively

covered all the issues but

we'll move on anyway. Let's'

start with the whole Therese

Rein affair. Has Kevin Rudd's

firepower on industrial

relations now been reduced as a

result of what's occurred? I

think it has. It's undercut two messages. I think Paul is

exactly right. They have

strayed very much into the

territory of attacking

individual businesses. That's

perhaps okay if it's a large

business or if it's a clear

cut. What they started to do

with this story was the the

template by this sector. If the

template is flawed and it's

being picked up for a whole hot

of hospitality sectors that's

worth highlighting. But when

Julia Gillard mentioned the

name of that hotel on John

Laws, she undermined that

business. This was about AWAs,

this hotel/motel award. What we

saw with Therese Rein's company

was that unfairness can be

built into individual contracts

as well, common law contracts,

which is Labor's policy. So it

makes it more difficult for

them to say AWA bad, common law

contracts good. It's the

hypocrisy angle that Tony

Abbott picked up on the Today

Show on Friday morning. The

real issue for Julia this

morning is the double

standards. I mean, Mrs Rudd was

given every opportunity to

explain her situation yesterday

but the previous day, a

newspaper report alleging that

some company had done the wrong

thing by its workers was leapt

on by Julia who was all over

the airwaves denouncing this tp

up hill and down dale. Are you

talking about the Goulburn

Motor Inn? It's the double

standards here that's the

problem. We'll get to the

conflict of interest thing in a moment I gather but on this question of Therese Rein's

company, it's not just the

contracts that they had

operating within the Australian

arm. I downloaded last night

from the web her German

company, Clements, which is

advertising mining careers in

Australia, and using the 457

temporary working visas, which

again, is a thing that Labor

has been ranting about. And

castigating employers for

advertising. And yet here it

is, on Therese Rein's company,

in German, but it's easy to

translate, and here it is. This

is how we do it and these are

mining contracts in Queensland!

Now, I don't know how Labor

voters and the union movement

up in Queensland will feel,

knowing that their leader

benefits from his wife's

company ... Well, I suppose

the fact she has now decided to

shed herself of the Australian

arm doesn't relieve her of

these sorts of issues? This is

the German arm! (LAUGHTER) I

didn't think Labor was opposed

to 457 entirely? The union

movement has been going nuts

over 457 visas. It's the way

... And the Labor Party has

raised it in Parliament time

and time again. 457 visas,

where do you get them? Go to

Therese Rein! I'm not sure

that Piers is right. I don't

think the union movement says

they're bad altogether, they

say they shouldn't be used as

cover for lesser wages and work

conditions, that they have to

be regulated properly? I think

that you're apologising for

something there, Fran. No, I

just think I'm trying to get it

straight. We should get

something else straight. The

common law individual

agreements don't actually allow

you if you stick to the law to

undercut the awards, whereas

the Australian Workplace

Agreements do. And that's the

distinction. Now, what happened

here was that it had to be

corrected, because it was.

Now, why do you think that in

the end, Therese Rein has

divested herself of the

Australian arm of this when the

conflict of interest doesn't

arise unless Kevin Rudd is

elected? I think Kevin Rudd had

been elected Prime Minister,

she would have to divest. That

is my view. I know there are a

lot of women out there who

don't agree with that and I've

been getting emails from many

of them, but I think that she

should have had a strategy

intact that made a position

clear what have she would do if

her husband was elected Prime

Minister. If elected Prime

Minister, within six months I will divest of the Australian

arm of my business. I strongly

disagree with that. I don't

think she should've sold the

business if he became Prime

Minister. John Howard said

... He said "yet". The Liberal

Party are worried, that's their

ideal, someone who starts a business from scratch and

builds it up. We have too many

people in this country make a

lot of money out of trading

shares and too few with the entrepreneurial flair to

actually build a company from

scratch and get it up and

going. The idea that you jump

that, that she is now forced to

jump the Australian arm of that

simply because her husband

might become Prime Minister,

the conflict of interest is so

obvious - can you seriously

imagine Kevin Rudd ringing up,

he wants more than anything

else to become Prime Minister

and stay Prime Minister, the

head of the department and say

"Forget the tender process for

these contracts. Give to my

wife." Kevin Rudd was the

chief paper-pusher for the

Queensland Government. He was

their senior public servant. If

he doesn't appreciate what a

conflict of interest is by now,

then he's very, very dumb.

Beyond the next election. It

doesn't exist at the moment. I

agree with you, but I will just

finish my first point. For him

to say very cutely "If I ever

become Prime Minister I will

ask Peter Shergold what is a

conflict of interest" is a

joke. It's a joke. Now, my

second point is this, although

I think that she should've held

on to it, because I believe in independence for women within

marriage and so on, absolutely,

the reality is that Labor has

made a practice of eviscerating individuals of wealth. You only

have to go to the federal ALP

web site right now and the

first anything is its attack on

Ted Baillieu, the Opposition

Leader here in Victoria. Why?

Because he had shares in a

blind trust. Kevin Rudd is a

beneficiary of his wife's

wealth. Has the government made

one personal attack on his

wife? Or her situation? No.

They've praised her. What I

think this goes to the heart of

is the extraordinary double

standards that exist in Rudd's mentality and the Labor Party

as a whole. I don't think that

gets it further in the whole

debate, which is we could have a Prime Minister in The Lodge

with a high-flying corporate

wife. That's a modern

thing. And why not? That's

probably a great thing. It's

covered by the conflict of

rules at the moment. You does

Claire your shareholdings.

Anyone at the moment with

shares in a company, they're

not allowed to take part in

Cabinet discussions and so

forth. Do you seriously suggest

someone like Malcolm Turnbull

has gone into politics try to

increase the wealth of of his

wife or that those things won't

be declared and he ... No, but

there are perceptions. This

family wants a member of the

family to go for the top job in

the land. Maybe some sacrifices have to come with that. There could be a perception of a conflict of interest. I'm

certain that Kevin Rudd peace

not gonna ring anyone and say

"Give her the tender." I think

he had an opportunity here to

champion a very popular cause

out there, that is, a spouse to make her own mark and go her

own way. It seems to me that

some - he either had the Helen

Red y choice, "I am Kevin, hear

me roar" or he could go the

Tammy Wynette way. He has

chosen the Tammy. Wynette way.

You are saying she could've

held on to her business? Hang

on, just to clear that up. I'm

not actually saying that. What

I'm saying is that in the

meantime, he could've made this point, and then if elected,

take a different course. If

elected, he should've stuck to

the existing conflict of

interest rules which Shea if

you have shares, you declare

them, which of course he would

do and you take no part in any discussion. But these things

wouldn't come to Cabinet

... No, they wouldn't, but you

would be naive in the extreme

to believe that even now as

Opposition Leader, when a

public servant is dealing with

a multi-multimillion dollar

contract involving one of

Therese Rein's companies, there

is not in the back of his mind,

hang on, this is a company

which is - or this contract is

ultimately going to benefit

Kevin Rudd, and there is that

conflict, whether it's within

your laws or not, Brian. And

whether that occurs or not, you

can't say it won't occur. That

is the problem for them and

it's a horrible problem. But

Therese Rein is still going to

be able to be a big corporate

player. She is still going to

have a significant business

operating

internationally. Whether the mining unions in Queensland

like her 457 os or not. Entrepreneurial flair in

Australia. She will have to use this money to trade shares or

something or other. No matter

what business you have shares

in, if you're a minister,

nearly every business in

Australia has some sort of

dealing with governments and

government policies that either

help them or hinder them. Of

course. I think point that

Fran makes is for those

particularly women out there

who are disappointed with this

decision at least they're able

to say "Hang on, she will still

be running a big international

company." She remains a businesswoman. There is a big

loss to Australia when you

knock very good entrepreneurs

on the head just because the husband happens to be in

politics. Kevin knocked her on

the head. I don't think he

should've. Presumably they

figured this out together. She

presumably wants her husband to

be Prime Minister too. Families

make decisions between them.

We'll move on now to the Prime Minister's remarks to the party

room. We've touched on them

already and certainly on the

remark where he suggested they

could be anigh lated at the

polls. He has no racket, indeed

no hat. Doesn't that leave an

impression in the minds of some

that he has simply run out of

ideas? That's the danger but I

think he has trying to address

the very really feeling out

there, people think John Howard

will come up with something,

because he has in the past. He

has been trailing in the Poms

and he has come up with

something. People think he is a

clever politician, which he is.

There is a sense that he will

come back. It is hard to find

rabbits. He'd love Telstra to go ahead and counter Labor by

saying, yes, we'll build a new

broadband high-speed cable,

etc. The trouble is in

industrial relations parlance,

Telstra's actually holding the

government to ransom saying

"We'll only do that if you call

off the competition watchdog."

Secondly the head of Telstra,

Sol Trujillo, I notice in latest poll of where

Australians stand in terms of

trust, he comes 97, he just pips Sheik Taj El Din al-Hilaly

and David Hicks! I think he was

with Mark Latham! On the

longevity issue, because John

Howard, Peter Costello and Alexander Downer have been in

the same position for 11 years,

that's a strength and a

weakness. What's the weakness

there? Voters are like

journalists. They like to see

movement. When it - they want

to see a rabbit run. Novelty

helps a lot. There is no doubt

about it. That's why every new

leader, without any policies,

gets a big jump in the polls.

He wasn't trying to share the

blame in the event of the

government losing? I also think

he was doing that thing that

Piers mentioned earlier. For

that moment, he was becoming a

when Taitor. There is an awful

feeling, you can almost see it

on the coalition MPs' faces at

the moment, what the heck is

going on out there? Why can't

we win a frik? He was trying to

explain it to give people some

answers. This is what's

happening. Just on that, when

you say there is still a

mystery surrounding all of that, you have referred already

to Tony Abbott. Here is what he

said during the week. The risk

is that we might sleep walk

into changing the government,

in a fit of absent mindedness

almost, if we the government

don't let people know that your

vote come the end of the year

does have consequences,

potentially dire consequences.

And I suspect that as an

election draws near, people

will start looking at the

substance and not the

superficiality of politics. One

of the big underlying

differences in previous

election there is has been a

fear factor working for the

government, a fear of

terrorists or asylum seekers or

whatever. This time, two of the

big issues are global climate

change or global warming and industrial relations. People

are worried about global

warming and they think that the

government is not doing enough. They're worried about

water too,. The 'Sunday Mail'

in Adelaide today, the front

page doesn't get any better for

the coalition as a result of a

poll. This is it. They're in a

can knew without a paddle, and

in fact, that's built on a poll

that shows 59/41, ALP in front.

These are the most important

issues as judged by the poll.

Water. That's a big problem in

Adelaide. But the poll also

showed 61/39, ALP in front in

the metropolitan area, which

brings in seats like

Christopher Pyne's seat of

Sturt, for example. Clearly,

Queensland and South Australia are not good forth coalition at

the moment? The water thing is

very interesting in South

Australia particularly.

That's why Bracks' position

on water this past week was so

interesting. All of the States

affected by the Murray-Darling

basin, except Victoria, signed

up for the PM's deal. Why was

Bracks the spoiler? And I think

that one of the reasons there

was that Bracks and his

bureaucrats, maybe they feel

that Victoria's done a good job

in looking after its quotas, or

maybe it's their turn to be the

spoiler for the Federal

Government. I think the former

is the case. I think a good case exists that Victoria has

put in place the best

management arrangements for

water, and that water is

flowing to higher-value uses

and they were rightly concerned

that the two big abusers of

water in this country, New

South Wales and South

Australia, will end up in some

compromise deal making the

Victorian farmers worse off. I

think he is protecting them

there is a huge problem here

for the coalition, I think, in

dealing with water. It's S o.

Hard for the Liberal Party to

get through good policies based

on essentially price Mercisms

to allocate water. The National

Party do not want this to

happen. They either don't want

the price of water to go up or

they don't want the water

entitlements that the farmers

have been given for free to be

brought back other than for millions of dollars, in other

words, getting a windfall which

is pretty undeserved. That's

my question. Why is there no

prospect of compromise here when Malcolm Turnbull attitude

seems to be "I don't really

know what Steve Bracks is on

about." John Howard said to me

recently when he is in a room

privately with Steve Bracks, it

seems to be fine and then all

of a sudden the whole deal is

off the table. It's not clear.

It's very hard to make clear

what Victoria's concerns are,

and why this isn't improving.

But Brian seems to understand

it! One of the things is they

are worried that the

not know anything about how to Commonwealth Government does

manage water. We all assume as journalists that the

Commonwealth says it must be

smarter than the States, that

isn't always the case. It's not

always the assumption either. I

think it is in many cases. Why

are they just standing in the

way of progress? They think

they can run drugs policy

better than the AFL, too! For

a Conservative Party, it's appalling behaviour by the

Liberals here. Here is people

being put at double jeopardy.

If you are an ordinary citizen

and you take a recreational

drug, nothing happens.

Footballers can end up with a

million dollar fine. Wendell

Sailor is out for two weeks,

that's costing him $1 billion

for taking cocaine. He ties

with the Prime Minister in the

survey as to who do you most trust? The Prime Minister

doesn't take cocaine but

they've each come out at No.

86! The Prime Minister in the

end made quite a stat t

startling declaration. Should

there be drug testing for

politicians? If people feel in

terms of having an appropriate

- well, an equivalence of

treatment of people, I have no

objection to it. Do you think

it should be introduced? Well,

there is a case for if being

introduced, if there is

evidence that drug-taking were

a problem amongst politicians,

I would be in favour of it. Is

there any

evidence?! (LAUGHTER) Let's not

go there. We did have a State

MP in South Australia and one

in New South Wales some years

ago advocate the use of drugs.

We have Sandra Kank, I think in

South Australia. But I would

rather see the Bar Councils and

the Law Societies in every

State drug testing their

people, quite frankly. Sounding

like Bill Heffernan now! It's

endless, this subject. The

issue here is whether the codes

themselves have their own

reputations to sort out. Rugby

union has gone very tough. Look

what they did to Wendell

Sailor, one strike and you're

out. Rugby league have said two

strikes and you're out. AFL three st