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've never met grown-ups like you. of the Neehi tribe. You are truly worthy members Lutin, Mannitol. Goodbye, Prince Dom, Prince Dick, The village is saved. What's the matter? I'm afraid, my plum is destroyed. We have failed. Oh. from the Neehi tribe, If we cannot get a piece of fruit

we cannot complete our quest. Quest? many years ago, In the Kingdom of Fyredor, were born. two handsome young princes we've got time right now. Don't think Oh, ah, yes, OK. Hm? Well, as you know, in the Neehi tribe fruit and veg are completely banned but I've got a secret to tell. without my five a day. I wouldn't be the chief (GASPS) Marvellous. Kumquat, that'll do nicely. (LAUGHS) be seeing a few changes around here. And from now on, I think you'll had their next ingredient. And so, our brave adventurers

had learned some lessons. And the Neehi tribe they would act a bit less like kids, From now on, and eat their five a day. (ALL GAG) (ALL LAUGH) Or maybe just chips. Closed Captions by CSI .

This Program Is Captioned Live.

Good Morning. The Australian Rail Track Corporation is denying

rail sleepers caused a freight train Track Corporation is denying concrete

to derail on the New South Wales -

Victorian border. The

government-owned company has been

replacing wooden and steel sleepers

on the rail line. Train drivers

flagged last month the new have caused hundreds of mud holes to flagged last month the new sleepers

appear making the track unstable,

the company says the holes are due appear making the track unstable, but

the company says the holes are due to

heavy rain and poor quality ballasts

laid in the 1970s. The founder of

d whistleblowing website Wikileaks has

defended the release of almost defended the release of almost 400,

400,000 classified US documents

the war in Iraq. Julian Assange says 400,000 classified US documents about

the documents were made public to

reveal the truth. They suggest that

senior US commanders turned a blind

eye to torture by Iraqi authorities.

The United States has criticised the eye to torture by Iraqi authorities.

p release. In Mexico at least 13 young

at a party in the city of Ciudad people have been killed in an attack

Juarez. The attackers arrived at the Juarez. The attackers arrived at

house party in several cars and

opened fire with automatic weapons.

It comes amid a turf war between

rival drug cartels and and

rival drug cartels and and less than

one week after a one week after a similar massacre.

And, the United States has lodged an

extradition request for an

man accused of accepting bribes for extradition request for an Australian

US-funded building project in man accused of accepting bribes for a Afghanistan. Construction manager

Neil Campbell is facing US federal bribery charges for allegedly

accepting payments from undercover

agents. The Queenslander was arrested in agents. The Queenslander was

now Insiders with Barry Cassidy. in New Delhi earlier this month. and This Program is Captioned Live. Good morning, welcome to 'Insiders'. The new Federal

parliament is starting to find

its own rhythm and the conduct of Question Time in particular

is already a vast improvement

on the indulges and disorder of

the past. The Government too,

while not yet making major

decisions, is pushing ahead with substantial debates on broadband,

seekers, the mining tax and, at

the insistence of the Greens,

Afghanistan. It's a crowded

agenda, but there's always room

for just one more item. This

week that item week that item was reregulateding the bank, trying

to place some sort of control

over rising interest rates. In

no time at all, the concept

became known as Hoconomics.

Hello. Brought out the

crowds. Under this Government,

banks put their interest rates up in some cases well ahead of the Reserve Bank's interest

rate rise. The Government

needs to step up to the plate and do pressure on the banks to make

cash rate. The first principle sure they do not go beyond the

is of course the Independents.

The Independent s of the

Reserve Bank. What is the

treasurer going to do to pull

the banks into line. He wants to reregulate interest rates, Mr

Mr Speaker, and he wants to

take punitive action against

banks. SONG: # To lose all my senses, that is just so

typically me ... # What tools

does the Government have to

require or pressure the banks

to follow more closely cash

rate movements by the RBA when

setting variable interest rates on their loans? Senator, they're largely decisions for the they're largely commercial

have not suggested that we will

be using section 50 of the Act.

That was a Senator. I can't

see the circumstances where you

would need to do that. We

didn't see this kind of

behaviour by banks under the

former Government. Clearly the

banks are ignoring the

Government. Every time

interest rates go up, the

treasurer goes out there and

says how terrible it is. But nothing changes.

ensure that the Australian

people get a better deal out of

their banks? It's not clear to

me what Joe Hockey is on about, apart from getting a apart from getting a headline.

There's a few levers we've

used in the past. Well, the

Parliament has plenty of legislative scope, but really I

think you should raise those

questions with Joe Hockey. You

can always count on the Member levers are available to the

Government. I'm not aware of

any precedent for the Federal Parliament regulating interest

rates, at least in recent

years, but really you should

speak to Joe about that. The

Turnbull wing of the Liberal

Party, Mr Speaker. I'm not

going to be specific. Nothing

specific, as usual. What

Australians want is concrete

action, not populist rhetoric. It would be rather difficult

to have a simple bank

independently operating

rates and at the same time monetary policies for interest

another body - ie, the

Government - regulating those

interest rates. That doesn't

sit too well together. I think

most Australians recognise that

we're best served by

competition in financial

services and a free market.

John Howard or Peter Costello, for all would wince at the statements

today from the Member for North

Sydney, Mr Speaker. We can't

have the situation where it's

upside for the banks downside for the taxpayer. We have to ensure they're

operating within what the

community would expect is a

reasonable band of behaviour.

I think that's what Joe is

talking about. I don't know

what he's really suggesting.

There's nothing practical there

at all. The member for

Caaning, he was asked about the

member for North Sydney's views

and this is what he said. This

is just another one of their,

as I said, lunatic fringe-type

ideas. It pains me to say it,

but I couldn't agree more with

the member for Canning. Very

good to hear Joe coming aboard

there. I'm sorry, don't groan

too hard. These people have

lost the plot, Mr Speaker. I

think we'll be sticking with

the free market and competition. this morning is the minister for communications, Senator

Stephen Conroy. First we'll

see what the Sunday papers are

covering around the country.

They're covering that

Dennis Atkins, Joe Hockey and

the coalition, it seems as

though they'll go ahead with

legislation to try to rein in

the banks. It's still unclear

exactly what they're going to

do, but Joe Hockey is

continuing to talk about it.

He's talking about having a

social compact between the

banks and the Government and he of legislation. There has been

a suggestion of increasing a suggestion of increasing the

powers of the competition

watchdog, the ACCC. watchdog, the ACCC. But Joe

Hockey's problem during the

week was that he didn't have

any specific proposals, and so everybody could interpret him

any way they wanted to and he

ended up looking like he didn't

know what he was talking about.

It's a good headline. A

goodiesy headline. Bashing the

banks is one of the easiest headlines -

companies It struck me watching

Wayne Swan, Labor defending the

banks? If you put up a

political solution that you're

putting up only for political purposes, the dangerous Greens

might support it and it will

become law. You have to have a

second paragraph. The obvious

question is how do you propose

ugly. You have to have an

answer to that, he didn't. He

didn't for about three or four

hours. It took off without

him. As you can see, he actually - Pretty

extraordinary for a to go out there and not have a second paragraph. John Howard in his book says that Labor

would have won the election

comfortably in fact if they'd retained Kevin retained Kevin Rudd as leader. Controversial call. Certainly the Labor Party didn't think

that when they dumped him.

Certainly a lot of Certainly a lot of people in

the Liberal Party, in the travelling party about Tony Abbott I

Abbott I spoke to on the

campaign thought they would

have flogged Labor if Rudd was

the leader. We'll never know.

He wouldn't have had wouldn't have been a ledge it massy problem about his prime ministership, there wouldn't

have been the spectre - He

might have had a Gillard

problem. There would have problem. There would have been a less cluttered campaign.

John Howard makes the point, he

he said that Kevin Rudd would

have been able to deliver a

clear, simple message. Now,

there was no evidence of that

in the last six months. Think

about what he's saying, though.

He's saying even though Kevin

Rudd had abysmal polling

exposed to a savage campaign on

climate change and insulation

and so on, still, even in those

circumstances, he would have beaten Tony Abbott. What does

that say about - do you think that's something Tony Abbott

wanted to hear? What if pok

had run. Oh, God. We never

will know. Obviously Rudd and

a few in the Labor Party think

Rudd would have won. You have

to remember, it was the leaks that killed second week. That killed her campaign. Whoever did it

wanted to tyre a shot, hit the

convey and mid-ships. convey and mid-ships. She

never recovered from it. Had

that not been for that, she

probably would have won, not hugely but comfortably. I

think it's all could have, should have, would have should have, would have sort of stuff. John Howard should

maybe explain why, if Kevin Rudd was such a good

campaigner, he still got a

swing of almost 10% primary in

his own seat. And why on. Okay. Glen, on. Okay. Glen, Barrie O'Farrell, the opposition leader in New South Wales, is having Twitter problems. Oh,

my God, Barrie. Yes, fat fingers have put Barrie over a

barrel. Barry owe Farrell has

big fingers to blame for appearing to promote

pornography. I rise in the

defence of pornography. Look,

you know, during the Bradfield

bielection I Spammed the sex

party, who was a party, who was a candidate, and

I got splattered. I think this is Barry O'Farrell's problem.

I don't think there's anything

to blame. In this case to blame. In this case he inadvert enterally passed on

some other - Yes, basically

fat fingers - I mean, you fat fingers - I mean, you know, whatever he put in the

computer, that came back. But

I don't think there's anything

in this. Last night James

Packer, who's buying into Channel Ten of and about and ran into the

Communications Minister, our

next guest. Yes, true.

next guest. Yes, true. I

think it's a good move by think it's a good move by James Packer. I always thought Packer. I always thought that

the move by Ten into two hours

news was fraught with danger.

I mean, this is a 16 to 30

demographic and the idea of

putting George Negus in there

to present the news - It's two

and a half hours of news with o'clock. Big risk. I think

Packer has seen this and he's

moved and if I was Nick

falloon, I'd be a worried man. It might

sport than news, with the

anti-siphoning. We'll go

through that with Stephen

Conroy, our next guest. That is

is the Sunday papers. While

Stephen Con Ray joins us in the

studio, let's hear from his

shadow, Malcolm Turnbull, the

guest this morning on 'Meet The

Press'. To give you a

comparison, the United States government is billion of taxpayers' money to

support broadband rollout. We

are spending on a per capita

basis 100 times more of taxpayers' money. What we are doing in Australia is

absolutely unique in the world.

There is nowhere else in the world that a national

government is spending this

sort of money to build one

national government-owned

network, which I must remind

you is going to result in

higher and higher prices for broadband access. But if the

productivity commission came up with a cost that was positive, would you

support it? Well, look, I

would not as a matter of

principle give a blank cheque

to anyone, even the productivity commission. If the productivity commission

were to report on the NBN, as

they should, and if they were

to give it a big tick from a

cost benefit point of view, it would be incredibly

persuasive. Senator Stephen

Conroy, good morning. Good to

be with a fellow Collingwood

supporter. There's a challenge.

If the productivity ran a cost benefit analysis and

gave the rollout a big tick,

the coalition almost certainly

would embrace it. Tony Abbott

set turn turn one task when

giving the portfolio, to

demolish the national broadband

network. They've been seeking

to delay the rollout for months

and months and months. They've

refused to allow debate in the

Senate. They said we had to

release the ACCC report, we had

to release the Macincy report, provide them all this

information. Now what do they

want - another report. around the world cost benefit

analysis has been done into the

productivity boost of a

broadband network. It's all

been positive, overwhelmingly positive. But here's a way

towards consensus, that if it

gave a tick, it would be

incredibly persuasive. Tony Abbott is saying something

different, and he's the leader

of the Liberal Party. He's saying Malcolm Turnbull's job is

is to demolish it. Even though he leaned

he leaned that way that he

might be prepared to accept it,

Tony Abbott has made it very

clear they are not going to

change the broadband will demolish the national broadband network. Malcolm

Turnbull has lots of fine

words, but he is still not

prepared to say if this was positive, we would support

it. All you have in this case

is an NBN internal business case, self-serving examination, so you're really relying on

studies done elsewhere. That's

not right at all. Firstly, we

have a $25m Macincies report

which shows that the financial

case is viable and gets a return

return to affordable prices for

Australians. Then if you look

just last just last year, Access Economics and IBM commissioned

a report into the productivity

case for a fibre to the node.

Not even the super fast network

we were going to build. It found found that the case was

overwhelmingly positive. My

own department has released a

couple of secretary orl anl sis

in the last few months which

again show there's a positive

benefit in E health. This is

just another time-wasting proposal by the opposition that

are desperate to stop the rollout of the National

Broadband Network Is that

essentially why you're oppose

today a cost benefit analysis, because it wastes time It wastes money. The OECD are

about to complete a major study

into broadband productivity,

cost benefit analysis drawn

from all across the world. So

what we have now is demands for

more studies and more time

wasting. In the US, the other point that Malcolm Turnbull

made, they're spending $7

billion on a broadband rollout, Australia Australia on a per capita basis

100 times that. Thank God. In

the US - I've been in the US a

number of times recently -

their broadband network is falling falling behind the rest of the

world. I've seen recent

comparisons, look what the UK

are doing, look what the US is

doing. Let's look at what

Korea, Singapore, Japan are

doing, what Hong Kong is doing.

The rest of the world is going fibre to the home and Australia

continues to slip further and

further down the tables because

we've refused to make the necessary investments to up

grade our network, our ageing

copper network. This is about

the era of fibre. So as we do,

does that lead to higher

higher prices? Not at all. When the business case or the

majority of the information

around the business case, which we'll be receiving, I

understand the NBN board

considered it on Friday and will be putting it to the

Government. Obviously we'll

consider it over the next week

or two. I would expect fairly

major information to be available about

pricing, the rates of return,

all of that sort of information

I believe will be very public

very shortly You'll make that

public after you've seen it? Absolutely. Do you think it

will clear up the question of

what it costs to wire up a

home? There are suggestions of

$3,000, $6,000. What is the

actual figure? This is one of

those great furphies, Barrie,

an attempt to denigrate the NBN

in the eyes of the ordinary

Australian public. It costs

nothing. We will provide a connection into

and then you can plug into that

connection and away you go,

using an existing wie fie network, the sorts of

technology in people's homes

today. They imply you're

fibring your toilet up. That's

what the figures imply, $3,000. Even the 'Australian' were

walking away from the figure

during the week What about the

fastest speed, does it cost you

more money You can get the

maximum capability within the room and the

want to watch IPTV on four different screens in four

different rooms, you might need

to do cabling. That's no different to Foxtel, for

instance, where they'll give

you one connection for their

price. If you want

price. If you want Foxtel in a

second room, you pay $15 a

month or so for an extra screen

in an extra room. There's no

difference here between that.

This concept that's been

created by some newspaper s that to get the that to get the complete excitement of the National Broadband Network you need to fibre up every every room, is just a nonsense. One of those newspapers, the 'Australian',

says one in 10 are taking up

the service in the first three

counts in Tasmania. Is that the figure, one in ten That's after three months. The

network got turned on live just

three months ago. What Macincy

said was the financial case is

built on, in their view, a

take-up in 12 months of six to

12%. We're ahead of schedule.

All of the arguments

reach the agreement reach the agreement with

Telstra. We are closing down

the copper network. We are actually transferring every

customer who wants a fixed line

on to the national broadband

network. So trying to suggest that one in 10 is somehow a

failmark when it's actually

ahead of schedule and

irrelevant ultimately because

every fixed-line customer

transfers on to the national broadband network that wants

to. So one in Ten is okay. Two out of three ten are choosing the cheapest

service. Does that threaten the viability of the project?

Not at all. There's this

great furphy everyone should

take 100 meg. take 100 meg. That's not what

we're proposing at all. People

will get a suite of products to choose from and be able to make

the choice that they want. If

you just want a simple

telephone to make calls on,

you'll be able to get that. If

you just want lower than you just want lower than 100

megs, there will be a raft of

choices for consumers, depending on what the retail service providers want to

offer. But the sort of whole

sale products which we'll be

offering, that suite of whole

sale products, will be part of

that information we'll be

releasing shortly. You have decisions to take on anti

siphoning. Of course the aims

of those laws put aside a list

of top sporting events for free

to air TV so people don't have

to subscribe to pay TV to get

it. When will you have

decisions on that? Very shortly we need to introduce

legislation, put a regulation

in place. So the Parliament

will be seeing all of those in the next package will be looked at by

the cabinet over the next few

weeks and we have to table

legislation. It will all be on

the table before the end of the

parliamentary sessions in

November. And the laws haven't

changed since 1992. A lot has happened since then, explosion

of channels and, in particular,

the free to air digital

channels. That's going to be a

major consideration. As I

said, at the moment there's a

piece of legislation that bans

TV stations from showing sport on the on the anti-siphoning list on

those multichannels. So if

part of the package - I've been

fairly open about this over

many years now. I support that general general idea that some of the

sport on the anti-siphoning

should be able to be shown on

the multi channel s. If that's

the case, we need to introduce

legislation to change the

law. And about what, 70% of

people now have access to the

multichannels and very shortly

it will be almost 100% That's

right, we're seeing extraordinary

drives take-up. You're seeing

Nine seven and Ten have rolled

out the new channels. We're

well on target. We had a successful shutdown of the

analogue system in Mildura.

We're up to 10,000 in-home,

going into pensioners' homes,

putting the set-top box in for them, doing wiring, fixing up

antenna issues. Over 10,000 in regional South Australia and

broken Hill. The program is

going very well. If you were to

do that, then, what can you do for reduce the list of protected

sporting events? Well, there's

a range of options. What I

anticipate is there will be some sports that aren't

currently - move currently - move on and

there'll be sports potentially

on that may come off. It's

about reaching that balance to

ensure that it's still given

the change in circumstances,

given all the new choice that

people have, it's about

reaching a fair balance between

wanting to make sure that

Australians can still see those

iconic sports. One of the

issues that many of your

listeners would know, I'm a mad

soccer van. I've said we had a policy

policy going into 2007, it's

still our policy, part of the

package, that package, that Socceroos World Cup qualifiers will go back on to free to air television. As

you go through all of this

process, you have to keep in mind the interests of the media

companies, the sporting codes

and the viewers. Can you really take care of all of

them? It is always a challenge

to balance. One of the more

complex parts about the debate

is it's not just between two range of different

organisations and parties. So finding that balance is

challenging, and I think where

we're heading we'll find that

balance, which will ensure that

Australians still get to see those key iconic sporting events. I am prepared to

guarantee that, in one set of circumstances, Barrie Collingwood will be

live, free on Friday nights

every week. When you put it

that way, you are a keen

consumer of sport. Can you be

dispassionate about this if waiting for Collingwood to come

on and it's on three-hour delay

and you think I'm the minister,

I can do something about this.

That happened during the recent recent final series of the Geelong Collingwood match in Canberra, for instance, was on

quite a number of hours after

it started. I got many phone

calls, but that's the sort of

thing that we're able to see if we've got the

multy-channelling, able to show the anti syphon list of sport.

You'll be able to see it as

it's played. That's the sort

of positive change, I think to ensuring that sports fans still

get a chance to see the key

games they want to see, but also providing an opportunity

for the pay TV market to also be competitive in this area as well. Okay. You've spoken with

James Packer a couple of times

since he made his move on Ten.

You met him last night at a

function? That's right. We

were at the Foxtel 15-year an verse versery dinner, a fascinating night, fabulous new

technology on the way Any idea,

any better informed of what he's

is? I think he's decided he

wants to get back into free to

air television. He has a foot

in all the camps and he likes

to have all the bases covered.

There are some issues There are some issues around competition and concentration

that I think Graham Sammual is

looking at. We wouldn't want

to pre-empt the outcome of

those. James is a very savvy

businessman and it's a very

clever move. How do you regard

a 20% stake, less than 20%? Is

that a minority interest or

because it's enough to pull together various alliances, as Graeme Sammual would see it,

it's effectively a controlling

interest I shouldn't pre-empt

Graeme's view. It's clear I think James has

than just his own holding from

all indications, so I think

Graeme has a real challenge

there to make those decisions.

In an open share registry, if

one person has 19%, then there

is a real situation where they

could exercise a dominant control. So I don't think

that's the case. I think

there's more people James's bid than that, but that's the sort of judgment

that Graeme Sammual is rightfully independent and

should be making Finally, Chris Mitchell, the editor in chief

of the 'Australian' accused you

of a hissy fit and said good

public policy is foreign to

you. Look, unlike the

'Australian', I won't engage in

an ongoing war. I'll just keep

to making the arguments about

the facts around the national broadband network and to give

you another example, a story

was written on Saturday, I

think, yesterday, which suggested that we were going to be not having battery back-up.

The journalist was told the

Government has instructed the

national broadband network that battery battery back-up will be

mandatory, yet the story

appeared without reference to

that. You said you won't go on

with it. Winston Churchill once said a politician

complaining about the media is

like a mariner complaining

about the sea. I guess they're

saying you rely on it, you have

to learn to live in it. That's

right. It's a robust game,

the facts are accurately

reported. I'm going to

particularly do that. I'll

ensure the facts about the

national broadband network are

not lost in a tidal wave of attempting attempting to misrepresent what

is actually happening Thanks

for your time this morning Good

to be with you, Barrie.

A piece that ran in the Oz on

- You're not - You're not believing

anything you're reading in the the 'Australian' Don't bother reporting news anymore, they're

engaged in regime change. I'm always wonderfully gratified when somebody from the 'Australian' agrees with one of

my speeches. That's not my

normal experience. The 'Australian' continue to print

stories that have no basis fact. Let's be clear here, the Oz have a front-page story

every day. They are just

getting together a whole range of

of disparate facts. Every day

and today's is about this issue. It seems the Communications Minister is

engaged in a vendetta now

against a particular media

outlet. Day in and day out.

He's engaged in at present a

most unpleasant spectacle.

Tomorrow it will be something else. see a newspaper losing its way in this way. You can't get

everybody on side agreeing with

you all of the time. That's

right, yes, sabotage, that's

what it is. Can the

'Australian''s cheer squad in

the right be quiet, please?

This just is part of an

ongoing tantrum by the 'Australian' newspaper the outcome of the election. We'll see how it's reported tomorrow in that light. Okay,

enough about enough about the media. Go

back to the banks now. back to the banks now. Here now is Malcolm Turnbull's

considered response on whether

Joe Hockey was purk for more

regulation. No, of course not,

no. Joe's expressing the

concern that many people have

about high interest rates and I

think all Australians do, in fact. having an open discussion about

that. We should be having a

debate about it. And I guess

that's the bottom line as they

see it. Well, look,

hurt them in the short term.

This regulation nonsense. It

could hurt them in the long

term credibility wise. It's interesting the Bankers

Association put out a statement

I think on Thursday and said

had the banks not increased

their rates above official

rises as they have in the past,

they would have not gone under but suffered enormous That didn't get much of a play.

I think what's going around the

coalition is attention between

Joe Hockey and Andrew Rob,

that's really the basis of all

this. Rob is now on the record

and wants Hockey's job, a run for Julie bishop's

position as deputy so he could take Shadow Treasurer, it

didn't happen. A week ago Rob

said something about the dollar which was interpreted

incorrectly as artificial

meddling in the value of the

dollar. Hockey shot him down

with a speech. Hockey has

tried to get another idea

going, that's backfired. trying a bit hard. Where does

Malcolm Turnbull fit into that.

They're actually going to try

to do something, aren't they?

You alluded to it earlier, the

Opposition. I don't know what

they'll try to do. They say

they want a social compact, but

they don't say exactly what

that is. Behind all this, if

you put Joe Hockey - We have

got the bank guarantee still in

place. Sure. That could be

withdrawn. It could be withdrawn, I don't think it

will be any soon, although there is a real

debate going on behind this and

we saw at Senate Estimates this

week Jim Murphy, one of the most senior people

where he basically said that

the Australian Treasury doesn't

believe the banks in arguments

about why they're putting

interest rates up at the rate

they are. He says that

Treasury's view is that they

don't really know what the

story is, but if the banks

aren't trying - aren't getting

the very least, trying it on,

and that's why you saw Graeme

Sammual come out this week and

say that when the chief executives of the

banks get up and make a speech

and think out loud about

putting interest rates up above

the cash rate, Graeme Sammual

says is that collusion, is Mike

Smith or Ralph Norris just

talking to each other in that

conversation? So there is an There's also the argument

about costs of borrowing overseas, isn't there, and the

fact that, you know, the costs

of borrowing aren't as great as the banks say. It's been

returned to normal, according

to the Reserve Bank. The

Reserve Bank said no excuse,

Swan is of that view too, there

is no excuse at the moment.

They get only half of their

funding from overseas, the other

other half they get from

domestic sources. The cost

there is - I think Hockey is

right to raise it. People are

cheesed off.

differential between the cash

rate and what banks are doing.

Don't you think a Don't you think a debate mass

been recast in terms of reregulation? Yes. reregulation? Yes. That's not

what Joe is talking about.

'Lowed that to happen. By

talking about legislation and

levers They have to be careful

too, as I said earlier, they don't get what they wish for,

because Bob Brown is waiting in

the wings and he's thrilled at

the prospect of doing business

with the libs. Here he Hockey is talking about clipping the banks' wings when

it comes to the fees they

charge. Well, I have

legislation before the Senate

to do just that, so that the

banks just can't

whenever they wish, regardless

of what the Reserve Bank

decides, that they'll put

interest rates up to keep paying multi-million dollar

payouts to their CEOs each

year. So I'm very happy to

talk with Joe Hockey with the

coalition aboard. That can be through before Christmas. I

think the think the Green indicates it's a mischievous contribution.

Isn't it interesting? You

used to watch Bob Brown just as

a commentator. Now you look at him and you go, "Wow" The

mining tax seems to have hit a

snag. They've left it wide

open to the stakes to raise

royalties and then the bill

goes to the Federal Government.

That's the way it works? When

they announced the mining tax

originally, they said the

states can keep collecting

royalty but we'll compensate

you for royalties as they are

now. When they renegotiated, they didn't put there, it was all royalties.

The miners are saying we want

to be paid for the ones now,

plus all future increases. Potentially the States could

hike up royalties hike up royalties and gouge all

the profits out of the mining

tax They have a policy transition group going to work

on this, couldn't they sort it out The Government is confident

they will sort it out. It

seems to me it's basically an

argument between the government

and BHP Billiton. Rio and

xstrata aren't so concerned

about it. about it. BHP think this

should be part of the deal and

it should be part of the

legislation. The Government

says no, no, it's what we

originally meant with the

it just wasn't written in in such precise detail. I think

they'll sort it out. That

group is meeting over the next

six months to work out all

these details and you talk to

the Government, they say

they're talking to BHP many

times a week about precisely

these sorts of issues. I'd be surprised it out. Surely the broader

problem is consultation. This

Government doesn't consult. It announces decisions - They are consulting on the mining tax.

- East Timor, the

Murray-Darling, the mining tax.

I mean, they just - I think

there's a lot of consultation

going on on the Murray-Darling. They're

They're consulting, but later,

after they've announced

decisions. Mining tax was an

oversight. It was either an

oversight or a deliberate act

to shut them up before the

election. The impression I get

is it was an oversight. The

bigger political problem is

that it feeds into Tony

Abbott's attack line that the

Government doesn't keep its

promises and that it doesn't

stick to what it says it will

do. That's a political problem

for them. Glen, how would you paraphrase Stephen Conroy's

message to James message to James Packer, welcome back to television?

Absolutely, happy days.

Another era of the Packers. It

was extraordinary. The extraordinary about the

interview was that Stephen Con

Ray said not everybody wants

100 mega bites. I thought this was the entire pitch of the

government that you get 100

mega bits. He's saying - It's

there if you want it. He's

saying it will cost you, it

will cost you, you to know. That's not what they've said

before. It won't cost you to

have it plugged to your house,

it will cost you to buy

services. You can tellie port put in. That's not

the pitch they put in during

the election campaign What do

you make of Malcolm Turnbull's

comments this morning if you have a decent have a decent study on this, we'll sign off, find it

incredibly persuasive, the productivity commission. Does

that place further pressure on

the Government? Well, in a

sense it takes some pressure

off the Government in terms of

the legislation. I don't think

that this move to go to productivity commission is

going to succeed. I

going to support it. But

Malcolm Turnbull I think is

signalling that if the reality

of the NBN changes, if there's structural separation of

Telstra, if the NBN rollout starts

starts to get to critical mass,

then he will rewrite the

coalition's policy. That's the subtext in what Malcolm

Turnbull is talking about. But

as Stephen Conroy pointed out,

that's very different to what

Tony Abbott's talking about,

which is demolishing the NBN. Those two things are not

reconcilable. Didn't - correct

me if I'm wrong, but Malcolm

said this morning he wouldn't necessarily accept the findings

of the productivity commission.

If they gave it a big tick, he

would find it incredibly

persuasive. That's virtually

signing off on it. It's a big departure from what Tony Abbott

was saying when he said to

Malcolm Turnbull get out and

destroy the thing He's

demolished the government was

Abbott's words. I don't think that's happening On Afghanistan the Parliament. If there was

any confusion that rose out of

all of this, it might have been

when Julia Gillard started

explaining the 10-year commitment. commitment. What was it that Stephen Smith said, Stephen Smith said, there

should never be a crack of light between the Foreign

Minister and Prime Minister.

Here the case of the Defence

Minister and the Prime Minister

if training is the key thing to

the 10-year thing, confusion when you hear from the Defence

Minister and the Prime Minister. We believe in you

are izgan we can are izgan we can complete and

our training mission on a two to four-year timetable Australia will not

abandon Afghanistan, but we

must be very realistic about

the future. Transition will

take some years. We will be

engaged through this decade at

least. I have said that we

will be engaged to the end of this

this decade at least. With

training and support and

civilian works, aid civilian works, aid and development development works. So the point

there, they mention training is

the key word there. Stephen

Smith talks particularly about Urizgan province. Is there a conflict there If you say

you'll stay tor ten years, it's

difficult to be too prescriptive at this stage of

what that means. She's saying

we'll be there until 2014 as we

are, beyond that there will be

military presence but replaced

by a larger training aid

component or something, but the

bottom line is we'll be there in some form for a decade. Any presence is exposed to casualties, isn't it? Also, as

Kevin Rudd pointed out in his speech during the speech during the debate, if

after 2014 we have a bigger aid

presence, those people will

need forced protection and the

Australian public will demand

Australians provide that forced

protection. But really I think

Julia Gillard wasn't quite

precise enough in the way she spoke about things, even though, as difficult to be precise. She

could have fleshed it out a

bit. There wasn't much new in what she said The frame might have caught a lot

of people by surprise. John

Faulkner has talked about it

before, in his speech to the parliament in June, his speech

to the Lowy institute, he

talked about a period that went

way beyond 2014. But the Prime Minister

Minister is saying it is

entirely different. John

Faulkner may have said it, but, you Minister says it, it has

import. What about this from

Stephen Smith, is this just

something you can say if you weren't there at the beginning,

if it wasn't your idea from the start? Here's the

Defence Minister I think it

took us too long, when I say

"us", I mean the international

community generally, too long

to really get down to define

what we had to achieve, what

risks we were trying to offset

or stare down. I think we now

have that strategy. The

problem is, of course, that it's years to get there. That's why

political will and the political will and the patience of domestic constituencies is

now an issue not just in the

United States and Europe, also here. Nine and a half

years, a long time to get years, a long time to get it

right. Yes, but he's quite right. The Americans didn't

have a strategy for Afghanistan

until Christmas 2009, after the

review and the McCrystal review

and then Obama took it into his

big internal discussion, which is the basis of Bob woordward's

new book and they explained there was no real overall

strategy for Afghanistan until

just under 12 months ago, which

is extraordinary. Smith in his

speech said one of the reasons

was the "distraction of Iraq",

he was right. Had they put

half the effort into

Afghanistan that was put into

Iraq from the get-go, they'd be

out now, maybe even have

captured Bin laden and drawn a

line under as much as you can under Afghanistan. All the

resources went into Iraq. Afghanistan was war. We pulled out for three

years. The context of the

debate, it strikes me, is the

Australian public is not in

favour of the war. But I make

one point about Australian public was not in

favour of a GST, they're not in

favour of hard reform. I think

the Government just has to

press on. I know, but you have

to give people some sort of

end. Afghanistan is a

notoriously difficult place. Trying is going to be very hard and

the best you can do is I think this business with this business with negotiating

with the Taliban is where it's

headed, get some sort of

honourable compromise and get

out of there. You were just in

Afghanistan recently with Julia

Gillard. This whole question

of who you negotiate with,

Julia Gillard took a bit of

criticism over that because it

was suggested she didn't under

stand that various element s of

the Taliban. What did you make

about that debate? It was interested interested that Alexander

Downer felt more confident

outline grand laying down of

the arms plan than Gillard.

She was far more cautious. I think she said there were

elements of the Taliban you

could deal with but it won't be

grand bargain, was the words

she used. She and Abbott know

more about it than we do because they were briefed.

They had a similar approach.

They probably got a similar

briefing on likelihood of success on this. They were

both cautious. They didn't spend too much time

I found interesting, they

skipped over that aspect.

Maybe they were told don't

embrace that too closely. I

think the reason for that is it

is a work in progress. David

Petraeus, the US general

running the war, is going to go

to Lisbon with at least the

bones of a deal between the NATO

NATO coalition forces and the tallbon and the Karzai

government, but he's still working that there is a list of Taliban

leaders who the international

community won't have a bar of,

but they're working out just

who else they can do a deal with. I'm surprised at

Gillard's caution there.

Petraeus is talking about shoot

and talk, you know. They're

shooting at us. She has to be careful politically. And talk

to the Taliban. I to the Taliban. I can't understand why Gillard - General Petraeus, by

token, is not sort of ticking

and crossing the various

Taliban people. He's giving force protection to some of the Taliban, getting Taliban, getting them into

Afghanistan and and in to talk to

to the Karzai government, but

he's made it pretty clear from

what I've read out of

Washington that if an entry

into Cab yul doesn't mean

you'll be on the list of the

final deal. So it is a work in

progress. The last word on this topic belongs to the National Party leader reliving a 1991 debate on the

Iraq war. Here he is. I

recall that I was stopped dead

in my speech by a number of

female protestors in the public

gallery who removed their

clothes to display the word

"peace" written across their

breasts. Perhaps it's the only

time any speech I've ever made has evoked such a passionate response. It's all in response. It's all in the delivery, isn't only five letters, that doesn't

quite add up. An interesting

point, a good point trust

raised, there was about a dozen

people out the front of the

parliament protesting. One

lady in the gallery stood up

and yelled during Gillard's speech, that was it. There

were still protests. It wasn't

moratorium stuff. I don't know

how much it's capturing the public imagination out

there The Government has taken

decisions on asylum seekers and detention centres, building two hostile meeting in the Adelaide

hills during the week. Here's

a sense of the sort of - no,

sorry, we don't have that just at the moment. When they went

to the meeting in

to the meeting in the Adelaide

Hills, a lot of local residents

resented the fact that this was happening without consultation.

They went a lot further than that. Some were straightout

hostile about having asylum

seekers in their community. It

will be a tough one. It is

going to be a tough one. The

woodside army base, which

actually was where my father

served when he was in and I was born just down the

road from it. But it is in a

very pretty part of the hills. It's a part of the Adelaide.hills that is dependent on tourism. It's quite different

quite different to pretty well every other detention centre

that's been set up around

Australia. It's in a community

and I think the people of the

Adelaide hills have a right to

be concerned about it. This goes

goes to my point about

consultation, though, Barrie.

Chris Bowen got on the radio

and alerted this people that it alerted this people that it was going to happen like hours

before. But when you say they

have a right to be concerned,

for what reason? Well, because

it is a change to their

community. Put ago detention

centre of 400 people into -

Single men. Well, just a

detention centre into a detention centre into a little

community, it is a big change

to their community. Little tea

something, it's like a - Most

of the others are on remote

army bases Can you imagine the

social problems too. A lot of

people there they are hostile, but they

want these kids coming into our

schools. Imagine the impact

that will have on the other

kids and how they might treat

them when they do arrive. them when they do arrive. They might learn something

too. Okay. We're going to

Talking pique turs, we'll look now at wub of better exchanges in the House of Representatives during the

week. I refer the Prime

Minister to her proposal for regional processing centre in

East Timor. Would Prime Minister define which

countries constitute the region

under her proposal? I know under her proposal? I know the deputy lop, like the Minister

for Foreign Affairs, has flown

over a lot of countries in the

last few days, but Australia is

in the same place it was when

she left. How would you like

to define it, well Asia Pacific

might be the kind would define it, I think. I'm Mike Bowers, talking pictures

with cartoonist Reg lynch. I understand your personal

contribution to the debate on

Afghanistan is you're going

commando. Yes, war is hell, as

you know. War is hell. The

Kudelka sums it up nicely, our

orders are to stay the course

until the job is done. What into detail. That's a terrible

cartoon, because the thing

about it is there's no joke. No.

joke. No. It's just real.

That's again about Kudelka, so

simple, no mucking around. I'd

like to know what the actual

US/Australia treaty says. I

think Mr Moir summed it

beautifully, it's the blind leading the blind. Weird

gothic style, old French

cartoonist. It reminds me of

that sad plague-ridden world that we live in that we live in again now. Exit

strategy, the US, NATO and

Australia going tap tap tap.

Heading offer the

cliff. Heading off the cliff

together. Andrew Wilkie this

week read the names of all people who have lost lives in

Afghanistan and got quite

emotional and broke down.

Being a politician must be

terrible when you're trying to

just be good and say things.

It must be lonely at the top

and slightly to the and slightly to the left. Watch

out, they might start to break

down people's cynicism down people's cynicism about politics. Julia was sat down

by the speaker this week. A lovely look, isn't it. Who me,

you really mean that? I think Harry should have

Did you say that Christopher

Pyne. This takes a really disturbing cartoon of the

week. This is from the

nightmare world of David Row.

Gillard and Abbott in 20 years

time. One for the troops and

the debate goes on.

Strangely, I think the style

works. Could just be in my nightmares. David Pope is

having a sensational year,

quite bravely sort of started

to draw Mary. It must be to draw Mary. It must be tough

to wade into this sort of area.

You have to be very careful, I

had to draw something about

miracles and things, I went

straight to God. I didn't bother bother with Mary. S' done it well, talking more about

Australia and the troubles

Australia are in. First day in

a new job, so which Aussie

miracles do you want to start on on first, saving the Murray-Darling, freeing the

refugees, I know, how about an

Afghan exit strategy. I love

this old sort of wise angel

with the smoke. That's God's

PA, God's PA. Reg, tanberg's

drawn a beautiful cartoon,

asylum seekers, don't

exit. He's getting more and

more sin sell as he gets on. I

don't blame him. He's been around,

around, he's seen so much.

They're fantastic. Reg, James

Packer has made a Ten. I can't

see what the fuss is about. It's moved one number, really? He has homer Simpson and George Negus looking nervous. Homer is looking

nervous and George, who's moved

from SBS, of course. Reincarnated Kerry. It's

to see a big Jamie Packer sort of happening. Beautiful,

lovely big, prime beef media

mogul who's grown into his dad's coat beautifully. Perhaps

Perhaps that is half the motivation he wants to be the

special test er, taste tester

on master chef. The channel

Nine Christmas hampers were

envy, at least channel Ten will

get decent hampers N the spirit

of the warm cuddly should sign off together.

Let's do it 3, 2, 1, back Let's do it 3, 2, 1, back to

you, Barrie. John Howard will

be launching his book I think

on Wednesday at the National Press Club. Part of that he

talks about how he encouraged

Malcolm Turnbull to reverse his

decision to leave politics.

Malcolm Turnbull said yes,

that's true, but he wasn't

alone. Here's Malcolm

Turnbull. I thank John for all

the advice he's given to me

over the years, but

retire from Parliament,

thousands of people in fact,

encouraged me to stay, and

obviously John was one of them

and a very influential

was too. Thousands of people.

He's under enormous pressure.

In retrospect, it seems ridiculous that he ever quit in

the first place. Yeah, didn't

Howard say the next day that

Turnbull realised he'd made a

mistake by announcing his

regular ition nation? It may

not have been thousands, but

definitely a lot of people urged who wanted him to hold the

seat, they thought they'd lose

Wentworth, it ranged from that

we need you in the party,

people like you in the party.

It was overwhelming and widespread. What about John Howard's rationale, he's

touched on this before, but

spelt it out in some detail

that he had made up his mind he

was going to give the

leadership to pok and then

Peter Costello got aggressive,

he came in a little hard and

therefore changed his mind. Glen, you were

this. Okay, wrong, wrong,

wrong. Look, I like John and

memoirs are self-serving by

definition. But I wrote the

story, it had nothing to do

with Peter Costello, it had

everything to do with Ian

McLachlan, the former Defence

Minister, who thought that he

was honouring a deal in 1994 to

which he witnessed, in which

Howard said he'd turn over leadership in one and a half

terms. That's it. I mean, I

did not - Even if pok had motivated that, encouraged

story, it still seems a bit

thin in terms of using that as

an excuse. I tell you, Barrie,

it was all Ian McLachlan, it

was straight-backed soldier in

him. He thought that it was a

deal and he thought that it had

to be honoured and it had nothing to do Costello. John's suggestion in

the memoirs that it did is

completely inaccurate. Howard

is making the point it wasn't

so much

story, it was Costello's handling of it, he should have

dismissed it and said that was

10 years ago, who cares. Can I

tell you, Phil, he did tell you, Phil, he did actually

at the time. I know that he

didn't think it was particularly relevant.

particularly relevant. He

thought it was so far in the

past that it wouldn't matter. Of course, the reality was

completely different. The fact

we're still talking about this

four or five years later showing he should have showing he should have won something for writing it.

Dennis, what do you make of the latest explanation? I think that John Howard did

change his mind. A few people

wrote at the time, around about

May/June, your story was in

July, wasn't it - in

few people wrote, akman wrote a

column he reflints almost in

its entire this morning. I

wrote a piece saying that there

was a change going on around

John Howard, who I was picking

up very strong messages through

June that something was June that something was afoot

that John Howard was looking at

Christmas as a time to announce

his retirement. So there was

something happening. That story happened, John Howard

changed his mind. Those things we know about. Okay. One

former leader, Kevin Rudd, had

a rather pleasant moment in the

parliament this week when he

raised the matter of Mary

MacKillop. Here he is. was the celebration of an extraordinary Australian woman's life and whatever

people's religious beliefs

might be, a cause for celebration for the Australian

nation. I was going to move

that the Foreign Minister have

an extension of time because he

answered the question so beautiful y. Hear, hear! And effectively. Order! Bring back Kevin! Order! back Kevin! Order! Finally

the words