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) Touch. You can't touch me! Aah! Well, that was...Hamlet! AUDIENCE WHISPERS Mr Stark. Well, good of you to join us, You and Miss Potts may proceed. I can't remember anything. It's OK. I don't know the lines. I can't! Just relax. Yet, here, Laertes. Aboard, aboard, for shame! and their adoption tried. Those friends thou hast with hoops of steel. Grapple them until thy soul

Whoo! Thanks, guys.

Sorry. That's not in the play, Mr Stark. be true. This, above all, to thine own self,

# Iron Man # He's Iron Man

# Iron Man. # - Vania Chew Closed Captions by CSI *

This Program Is Captioned Live.

Good morning. Asia pacific leaders

meeting in Singapore have scrapped

plans to include climate change

targets in their final statement.

APEC Summit is the last major targets in their final statement. The

gathering before the Copenhagen

in three weeks. Australia's Prime gathering before the Copenhagen talks

Minister, Kevin Rudd, has been

discussing the issue on the

sidelines. But the leaders have

backed away from a target of halving

greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

global financial crisis is also high greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. The

on the agenda. Indonesian officials

say a boat carrying 61 Afghans was

trying to get to Australia before it

was intercepted. The group is being

questioned by police in Indonesia,

with three detained on people

smuggling charges. Another 47

suspected asylum seekers are now on

their way to Christmas Island, after

their boat was found in the Timor

Sea. British troops have once again

been accused of abusing Iraqi

civilians during their six year

deployment to Basra. Thirty three

allegations of assault have emerged, deployment to Basra. Thirty three new

but the British Government is

resisting calls for a full public

inquiry. And the Socceroos have beat

Oman 2 to 1 in their Asian Cup

qualifier in Muscat. Brett Emerton

scored the winning goal with seven

minutes remaining. And now Insiders,

with Barry Cassidy. This Program Is Captioned


Good morning. Welcome to

Insiders. Again a lot happening

with asylum seekers as we go to

air this morning. The latest

report from the 'Oceanic

Viking' is that 22 asylum

seekers have left the boat and

authorities are hopeful others

will soon follow them N

meantime another boat with 47

people on board has been

intercepted in Australian

waters and that's the Headed for Christmas Island. And

further north, the Indonesians

have shot and wounded two

suspected people smugglers on

yet another boat headed for Australia. Against this

Kevin Rudd will this morning background the Prime Minister

break away from APEC

discussions to have talks with

Indonesian President Yudhoyono

fo. Get the latest on

developments in Singapore I'm

joined now by Mark Simkin. Good

morning. What do you expect the

Prime Minister will try0

achieve in these discussions

with President Yudhoyono? He

will be trying to achieve some

sort of e nunsation of clear

protocols that would govern

situations involving

interceptions of asylum seeker

boats. He wants to avoid

another 'Oceanic Viking'

debacle. The problem, though,

is right now we don't quite

know when this much anticipated

meeting is going to take place

or indeed what form it's going

to take when it does take

place. There were some hopes in

the Australian camp for a form

al sit-down with the Indonesian

President. It may not take that

form. It may be a more or a

less formal chin wag in the

corner of the room on the

sidelines of the summit. And

it is one crowded agenda for

Kevin Rudd and apparently he

has called a breakfast meeting

in Singapore this morning and

climate change this time is the

issue? Yes, it's about 6am

here, in about an hour, Prime

Minister Rudd will be hosting

this working breakfast on

climate change. It wasn't on

the original agenda, so it's

something that's been sorted

out whilst here. There are 21

leaders here and 17 of them are

confirmed that they will be there, including President

Obama from the United States.

Kevin Rudd is very keen to push

the agenda before the Copenhagen conference next

month. Here's part of what

Kevin Rudd had to say on that

topic just yesterday. This

is an important, I won't say

last opportunity to build

further momentum in the

direction of a strong outcome

for Copenhagen, but when you

have gathered in Singapore

economies which represent a

large part of any final

negotiated outcome for

Copenhagen, this is an

opportunity which we cannot

afford to miss. So there's lots

of talk about ambitious action,

but there doesn't seem to be

much action to back up the

talk. According to Chinese

officials here, Barrie, the

draft communique that APEC

leaders were going to release

talked about a very ambitious

target of cutting emissions by

50%, and according to the

Chinese, that target is going

to be dropped from the final

communique because many of the

developed nations in the

Chinese words don't have the

stomach for hard action. We'll

take that up with the Climate

Change Minister Penny Wong who

will join us shortly. President

Obama is in Singapore and it is

his first visit to Asia as

President? His first visit to

Asia. His first visit as

President and his first visit

to APEC. He got in last night,

just in time for the most

anticipated event at APEC

Summits the silly shirt event,

and I'm pleased to say the

shirts were actually pretty

stylish this year, not that I'm

much of an expert on that.

Although less stylish was the

mode of transport the leaders

took to their event. They were

pulled there in trishaws, a

cross between a tricycle and a

rickshaw. Kevin Rudd and

Therese Rein looked pretty

relaxed, whereas a lot of the

other world leaders looked down

right nervous as they trundled

through the streets. Barack

Obama has been talking big in

the lead-up. He is has been

saying he is the Pacific

President, he wants to reengage

with Asia, a bit of a back

hander at his predecessor, and

he is saying he would endorse a

Pacific free trade zone and yet

quite a few of the other

leaders here yet were taking

potshots at the United States,

particularly on the issue of

free trade, saying that the United States needs to show

more leadership and actually

saying that the US is

exhibiting protectionist tendencies. Mark Simkin, thank

you for that update. Back home,

the Rudd Government took two

important decisions this week,

essentially two decisions to do

nothing. As a result, their

reform credentials were brought

into question. The first they

supported authors and

publishers ahead of consumers

by not allowing cheaper books

to be imported into the country and second, the Environment Minister Peter Garrett blocked

a dam in south-east Queensland.

That was criticised by the

Queensland Government because

it denies that heavily

populated area an important

future water supply but even so

the minister found himself

being praised by so many areas

from Barnaby Joyce to Bob


It's my intention to say no

to Traveston dam. OK. Let's

roll. The project would have

serious and irreversible

adverse effects on nationally

listed species such as the

Australian lungfish, the Mary

River turtle, and the Mary

River cod. There is no pristine

rainforest. This is not the

Daintree or the Franklin

Gordon. This is land that was

cleared for farming more than a

hundred yearsing ago. It's been

a difficult decision. It will

come as no surprise I'm very

disappoint ed by the decision

of the federal minister.

I will give credit where

credit is due and I will

commend Peter Garrett today for

coming up with the only

decision that he could possibly

come to. That was, to can

this. I've gitten to Peter

Garrett congratulating him.

I've sent a bottle of champagne

up to the campaigners. I profoundly disagree with the federal minister about the

science of this decision. I've

got a robust record for making

sound decisions I Good on

him. A mate of mine has a

Midnight Oil shirt signed by

Peter Garrett. He was going to

burn it today if Peter Garrett

made the wrong decision.

Thankfully he's going to keep his shirt! SONG: # I do things differently #

Just announcing the government's decided not to

change the Australian

regulatory regime for books

introduced by the previous

Labor Government. We accepted

that the damage to Australian

culture would be not a wise

thing to do. And so we have not accepted the Productivity

Commission's report. They now

face major embarrassment. I

feel sorry for you, Craig. It

is a humiliation for you. The

largest benefit goes to

well-off well-established

publishers and authors.

SONG: # Don't care what they say

# I do things differently # Dan

Brown, recommended price,

$49.95. The recommended price

in the UK and the US in Aussie

dollars, $33 or a shade less

than the US. People have been

able to purchase books on-line

through Amazon. They can

deliver within a week to your

home. So that itself is

applying plenty of competition

to the Australian book publishing and printing

industry. If you prefer to buy

in Australia than Amazon you're

only paying 200% extra. If the government can't deliver this

simple reform because of the

uneducated clamour of a few

authors who are driven by

publisher interests then there

is little hope the government

will be able to stand up to other pressure groups and bring

about useful change for the

economy and for our society.

SONG: # I do things

differently #

So books and dams later on

and the big issue of the week

will be climate change. Finally

the government's Bill goes to

the Parliament for a second time. And this time, it's

serious. This time the

coalition has to take a final

position that they'll carry

with them all the way through

until the next election. And as

the negotiations between the

parties wind down, our program

guest is the Minister for

Climate Change, Senator Penny

Wong. But before all of that,

with the help the of the panel

we'll check out the Sunday

papers around the country. A

lot happening. Fran, big development in climate change.

The government has agreed

apparently to exempt

agriculture ... This could be

the breakthrough. That's how

it's been written up. One of

the red lines for the

opposition, they had a few of

them, one them is agriculture.

They wanted agriculture out.

They've got a huge rural

constituency. The farmers want

to be exempted from the scheme

as they will be under the

American scheme and so others

but they also wanted to be able

to bank their offset it is they

do improved farming practices T

seems as though the government

has backed down on that, which

I don't think is an un

reasonable thing. There are

other red lines. Will he give

more compensation to the big energy producers for instance?

There is a few other things

still in the works. But I would

say this is a very good sign in

terms. Negotiations. The

previous position was to review

the position withing a culture

about four years from now? The

government was saying on the

record it was very difficult, for instance, if you are

talking about measuring offsets

and banking offset, to measure

what offsets are in the soil

and how do you come to terms

with that? I think it was

always headed this way this

puts a lot of pressure on the

National Party who are opposed

to the ETS but a lot of their rural constituency might be

pretty pleased at this notion

of not just being exempted from

an ETS but also being able to make money out of their

farms. The national farmers are

taking that position but

Barnaby Joyce. He is saying he

won't vote for if because it's

a big taxes policy. The

ombudsman has criticised an

aspect of the government's

stimulus package? A report out

today describes the publicity

campaign for the cash splash as

inadequate. The government went

out of its way to tell people

money was coming but didn't clarify in its advertising who

wouldn't get it, and for the

people who were receiving lump

sums, they might have - some of

them might have to wait until

after they got their tax

return. People were expecting

different things. A lot of

complaints to Centrelink. Over

6,000 complaints. The ombudsman

got a lot of complaints as

well. And I just remember when

Wayne Swan was in opposition he

used to love this stuff especially with the family

payment system when every time people got done over by Centrelink because of

overpayments he was always the

first one to shout about this.

I will be interested to see his answer to the first question he

gets on this topic. He justify

spending public money on advertising because they say

there needs to be an education

cam bane but they just tell the

good news and refuse to tell

the bad news. If it were a

genuine advertising campaign it

wouldn't say add 10 points to

my approval rating for the next

new poll. It would say people

will get this money but some

one. Here are the people who

won't. There could be some really big developments in New South Wales over the next few

days. Nathan Rees has been given significantly new and

fresh powers? Yes, Nathan Rees,

New South Wales Premier, is now

being called emboldened. He

will apparently rebuild his

Cabinet after being granted

these powers to selected his

own ministers. Bob Carr,

Neville Wran never had the

right to pick their own

frontbench. But Rees grabbed

the power yesterday at the ALP

State conference. It's

do-or-die. He is going to fight

to pick his own team. That

means some vep prominent

frontbenchers are in the firing

line and most prominent amongst

them is Joe Tripodi, who does

have almost a national profile.

He's been not an ineffective

Finance Minister. He is seen as

quite effective but very

unpopular in his party and in

the electorate. It seems that

Rees might take this power and

dump one of the key

powerbrokers that put him in power in the first place. If

that happens, you will be busy on breakfast tomorrow

morning! If that happens I'd be

amazed. He might have the power

to do if but there will still

be a bit of a backwash you

would think from it. I think

the idea is that even though

he's very strong and with Eddie

Obeid is also part of that

kabal, even though very strong

in the party, quite unpopular,

and Rees has to do something to

lift his approval ratings

otherwise he might as well

throw it in. Let's here from

Nathan Rees now. I seek this

authority for one reason and

one reason alone. So that Labor

leaders, present and future,

can appoint Cabinets in which

the people of United States

have full confidence. Let's

see what he does with those

powers. Anna Bligh has that power in Queensland and Kevin

Rudd at the federal level. Fran, Kevin Rudd wasn't in the

Cabinet room when the decision

was taken on books, but

nevertheless, an explanation

has been put out that goes

beyond that as to why he

abstained? He abstained because

he wasn't there, but no, that's

not good enough. We do know

that Julia Gillard who was in

charge of that meeting, because

it was a line-ball decision, he

rang someone else who wasn't

there and got their view. But

the PM was fence sitting, never

a great position for a Prime

Minister, especially on an

issue of economic reform. Very

curious this. His daughter

Jessicas a a three-book deal,

she is writing a novel about

the rise of a Machiavellian MP.

He obtained. That's ridiculous.

I hope he didn't make the

decision because it was a

contentious one and he didn't

want to get in the middle of T

that's not leadership. There is

people siting in that Cabinet

who have written books

themselves. Should they have

obtained? The Labor book club! It doesn't make any

sense. Even though Kevin Rudd

does have the right to appoint

his own Cabinet and so forth,

he does have that power, it's a

very weak decision by the

government and by the Prime

Minister not to take some base

leadership on a decision which

is not a huge industry and all

that sort of thing but it is

being seen as very symbolic

issue as to: does this

government - is it a reforming

government in the Hawke/Keating

mode? Will it be a pro-market

government? Will it put the the

interests of consumers first or

the interests of vested

interests first? It's

signalling it will put the vested interests first. We'll

discuss that later on. To our program guest now. After weeks

of negotiations essentially between Climate Change Minister

Penny Wong and her opposite

number, it's almost time to

vote for a second and final

time on the government's ETS

legislation and to that end

we're joined this morning by

Senator Penny Wong. Good

morning and welcome Good

morning, Barrie. Time for talk

is almost over as I said. Are

you any more hopeful now of the

support of the coalition than

you were when you first started

negotiations with Ian Macfarlane? Well, there's still

a bit of talking to do. But as

you know we are moving forward.

It has been a very constructive process these negotiations. We

are moving forward. We are absolutely committed on this

side of the table to doing what

we are able to to get a deal.

That's why we've announced this

offer on agriculture. That's

why we'll continue to move

forward in these negotiations,

'cause this is in Australia's

national interest. We need to

get this reform through. That

is a big concession. Is it the

deal breaker, the agreement on

agriculture? There was a lo

long list put forward by the

opposition. Certainly, they've

said publicly that agriculture

was something they had to have.

There is other things on their

list. We've said to them

economically responsible, environmentally effective are

the tests we'll apply. But in

terms of agriculture this is an offer that's made by the

government on an issue we know

is important to the opposition

because we're serious about

getting this legislation

through. You're also allowing

farmers as I understand it to

benefit by generating carbon

credits. Why weren't you on

that page months ago? Well,

just on this issue, we agree

with the National Farmers

Federation on this, that

excluding agriculture doesn't

mean farmers want be part of

the solution. We have to work

through how that will be the

case. Where we were a few

months ago was that we needed

to do more research and that we

wanted to review this issue in

2013. The opposition put to us

that they wanted more certainty

in that. They wanted specific

exclusion in the legislation.

We are saying today, we're

prepared to do that in the

interests, in the national

interest of getting up the

carbon pollution reduction scheme, getting that through the apartment. This is an

offer we're prepared to

make. What do you say to the

people who want a tougher

scheme? A very large

contributor that is farming to

greenhouse gas will be

excluded? We look to what the

National Farmers Federation

have said, that exclusion of agriculture from the scheme

doesn't mean farmers can be

part of the solution. We're

interested in continuing the

discussion with the coalition

about how we do that.

Overnight, the APEC leaders

backed away from a fixed target

for halving emissions that target was in the initial draft accord together Chinese. It's

not there any more. Is that an

ominous sign? Look, there's a

lot of discussion about targets

and communiques and

declarations. I've been part of

negotiating a few of them this

year. A key issue is the 2

degree target, that is, trying

to hold global temperature 2

degrees. From that flows a whole range on develop and develops economies. That was

included in the major economies

forum declaration earlier this

year. I think that's the key

way of looking at this. What is

the temperature rise that we

want to try and achieve? But

you need to achieve that by

halving or at least making

significant inroads into

emissions. Whenever gatherings

like this get together, what

seems to happen is that the

political will disappears. Our

political will is there. We've

said we will move to a 60%

reduction by 2050, and that the

Prime Minister has made clear

that he's prepared to go to an

election for a greater target

if that's required. Our political will is clear but the

key issue here is not that's

happening in 2050. The key

issue is what's happening in

the next two weeks. We've got

the opportunity to pass for the

first time legislation that

actually reduces Australia's contribution to climate change.

That's what we've got to get on

with doing. The time to pass

this legislation is now. But

again the target seems to be

the problem. In your separate

negotiations with the Greens,

you've excluded any discussion

of emissions reduction targets.

Why did you do that? Why did

you put restrictions on your

discussions with the

Greens? Well, what I've said

publicly is we think the

targets that we have put on the

table are both ambitious and

credible. And they are also

achievable. And those are the

targets that have been agreed

to by the opposition. Those are

the targets that have been

negotiated and agreed to

through the discussion the government had with the

community, the environment yam grups and the business

community, leading up to the

announcement earlier this year.

Up to 25% reduction by 2020.

That's a very significant reduction. Obviously that's not

all we have to do. We have to

go further than that but we've

got to get on with it. We keep

talking about 2020, 2050. I'm

worried about this year and

next year and the year after.

I'm worried about giving

business the certainty that's required for the investment

that's needed for this

transformation. Just this week,

we had the International Energy

Agency estimating that each

year of day will cost the globe

about US $500 billion more to

make the transformation. 500

billion is what they've put the

figure at. That just

demonstrates the longer you

delay, the higher the cost,

it's the same advice Peter

Shergold gave John Howard. The

advice was go soon because if you don't it will cost you

more. Let's get on with it. The

time for action is now. You say

the time for action is now but

can you understand the

frustration from the Greens and

those who support the Greens'

position that you will

negotiate with the coalition to

weaken the scheme but you won't

seriously negotiate with the

Greens to strengthen the

scheme? Well, we're willing to

have a dialogue with the

Greens. I'd remind you that the

Greens voted with Barnaby Joyce

and Senator Fielding when this was last before the Parliament.

That's a matter for them.

They're entitled to do that.

We're willing to have a

dialogue with the Greens but ultimately, the government has

to get this legislation through

if we want to effect change A

theoretical Bill sitting on the

table doesn't actually do

anything to reduce climate

change. And we either have to

get the Greens for Senator

Fielding and senator Xenophon

or we have to get the

opposition. We need to get into

dialogue with the opposition. We're obviously prepared to

have a discussion with the

Greens but ultimately, the

Senate means, the way the

Senate is configured, we need

to get a majority of senators

to support this legislation.

Malcolm Turnbull still has the

majority of senators in the

Senate. The Greens released

some research overnight that

they say says 35% support the

government's position but 54%

want tougher action as outlined

by the Greens. Do you accept

that might be the true

position? In this job, I've

been given lots of modelling by

lots of people. I've been shown

lots of polling by lots of

people who've paid for it. Our

view is we have to do what we

think is right. I can say this

to you: we have always tried to

do what we think is in the national interest, and what we

need to do so get the support

of the Parliament. That is how

we're approaching this. We

think it is absolutely in

Australia's national interest

to kt act. We've had a lot of

debate in this country, over a

decade. The time to do

something is now. In the next

two weeks we have the

opportunity to do it. There

were some interesting figures

released on rising sea levels.

Not so long ago, you released

your report suggesting sea

levels would rise by 79 cm by

the end of the century. Now we

have another one suggesting it

could rise by 117m. Which one

are we supposed to believe? The

79 cm was the upper end of the IPCC scenario which was based

on the science as it was to 2007. The reason the government

chose, with the advice of

experts and the department, to

model a 1.1m is that the

science has moved on. It is

comparable with the sorts of

estimates that other countries

such as the US, the UK, Netherlands and New Zealand

have put in place. This is

about the upper end of the

risk. What we're saying is in

terms of the long-term planning decisions that we're making,

the locking in of

infrastructure, the planning ,

land use decisions that we're

making which have very long

time frames, we do need to have

information that shows us the

broad range of risks. 1.1m is

the upper end that was chosen.

Obviously this is the beginning

of a discussion, a dialogue

with different levels of

government and the community.

We need a strategy that's going

to go forward in the years

ahead but the first thing we

need is the information. And

that's why the government did

this, what we call a first pass

assessment, a vulnerability

assessment. That gives us a

better sense of the risk smoo.

But it is the upper end of

predictions. It assumes in

effect that governments do

nothing for the next 100 years

around the world. That's not

going to happen. To that extent

it's alarmy., isn't it? You

just actually talked to me

about the lack of political

will earlier in a question but

I hope on that you are wrong

then and right now, that

governments have the political

will to act. We're not at all

trying to do anything other

than to put information into

the public arena. As I said

yesterday, if we knew this, if

this information were provided

to government and we just sat

on t you'd be saying to me: minister, isn't it irresponsible for you not to

release it? We're saying: here

is an analysis. We need to work

with local government, State

Governments, we have to work

through this and get a much

better framework for managing

the coastal vulnerability that

climate change imposes. But if

240,000 homes are genuinely at

risk of inundation, of going

under, then surely given those

dire predictions that's a good

argument to embrace the Greens'

position to do more than what

the government is actually

suggesting? I think it's a good

argument to act. I think the

thing we keep forgetting is

that the longer we delay, the

higher the risk, the higher the

cost. As I said, we can have a

discussion, you and I, about

theoretical targets. Ultimately

what matters is how much we

actually reduce emissions by,

how much we actually reduce

Australia's carbon pollution.

We'll only that if we pass legislation that actually sets a cap that starts to

reduce. The decision taken this

week to block the Traveston dam

in south-east Queensland, in

the end what mattered most to

the government? Was it the environmental consequences or in the view of the government,

there were better options

available? Well, that is a

decision that Peter Garrett

makes. As Environment Minister

under legislation. He has a

statutory discretion. He's

entitled to exercise that in

accordance with law as he sees

fit. He exercises his discretion in terms of the decisions under that

legislation. That's a decision

for him. Obviously, it is a

decision that Queensland has

made their views clear about.

I've certainly had some

discussion with my Queensland

counter part about consequences. We'll work

through those in terms of the

water portfolio but ut naitly

this is a decision for Peter

Garrett. But Anna Bligh the

Queensland Premier made the

point this is not pristine

country and if you block a dam

there, it's hard to see this

government approving a dam

anywhere in the country? Well,

people are entitled to express

their opinion. This is

legislation that's been in

place for some time. In fact was introduced under the Howard

Government. And it gives the

Environment Minister discretion

which she or he has to exercise

as he sees fit. And Peter's

gone that. Do you think this government, the Federal

Government and Peter Garrett is

capable of approving a dam

anywhere? I think Peter Garrett

is perfectly capable of making

the decision he believes right

in the circumstances. And

that's what he's done on this

occasion as he has on previous

occasions in relation to other

projects. It's going to cost

the Queensland taxpayers a

whole lot more money at least

according to the premier. Do you take the view that

supplying water to south-east

Queensland is purely a

Queensland responsibility? As I

said earlier, I have had some

discussions with Stephen

Robertson when I was in

Queensland on Friday for a Murray-Darling ministerial

council. There are obviously

consequences for Queensland in

terms of how they now manage

obtaining water security the.

They'll have to reconsider

their plan into the future. As

the Federal Government we made

clear we do believe we have a

role in assisting States to

ensure urban water security.

That's why we've funded

stormwater projects, we've

funded desalination plants. We

have an urban Water Fund. We're

certainly willing to have this

discussion with Queensland.

They can come back with you

with some prospects of winning

support with desalination for

example. We're certainly

willing to have this dialogue

with Queensland. We understand

that there are some pressing

water issues for that State,

particularly with population

growth. So that's obviously an

issue we're prepared to have a

discussion about. Just

finally, it's not in your

portfolio responsibility, but

hopefully you've been briefed

on this, on the 'Oceanic

Viking' - 22 asylum seekers now

have left the boat. What do you

understand are the prospects of

others following them? Well, it

isn't my portfolio. I am aware

of the 22 who've left the boat.

There are some reports of

others being willing to leave.

This is an ongoing situation.

Obviously the Australian

Government's view is we want

this - we're prepared to

operate patiently here, wait

patiently. But we are keen to

see this matter resolved and

people are working through it

on the ground. Senator Penny

Wong, thanks for your time this

morning. Good to speak with


Hi. We all enjoy a good book

by the beach but are we paying

too much for them? It's claimed

Australians could be missing

out on significant discounts on

books after the government

moved this week to continue the

protection of the local

industry against cheaper

imports. Was it a good call or

did we get a raw deal? I think

it's good if it's protecting

local authors. Australian

authors have to be accepted internationally and I don't

think we can protect them if

they want to be recognised.

I buy books from Amazon. My

daughter lives in America E I

have them delivered to her and

I pick them up when I go over.

So it is great to get cheaper

books. On the other hand, I

want to protect the Australian


You can buy it on-line, but

it is really nice to go into a

bookshop and for kids to pick

it up and to be able to buy

that. To make that more

affordable, I think that would

be a good thing. I believe the

Internet purchasing is sort of

destroying the local industry to some extent. Happy with the current

price? Yes, prepared to pay it

for a good book. The market

finds its own level. If you go

overseas for it, you don't have

the protection, the books are

still roughly the same price.

Books are far too expensive in

Australia. They're like double

the price of overseas.

Particularly if you have

children or you encourage them

to read. The kind of price of

books does put people off.

If you can keep the

Australian participation in

books, don't get swamped by -

we lose our identity, I think

that's very important.

Back with the panel now.

We'll talk about the 'Oceanic

Viking' and 22 who've left the

boat. The deal seemed to be

that they would be processed

with somewhere between 4 and 12

weeks, which is a fast tracking

of the process if you compare

it with what would happen on

Christmas Island or indeed in

Indonesia. Yet Kevin Rudd two

or three times this week

refused to accept this was a

special deal. When I look at

what's been provided here, it's

consistent with UNHCR

processing, both in Indonesia

and elsewhere around the

world. The bottom line, are

these people on the 'Oceanic

Viking' getting special

treatment? Absolutely not.

Absolutely not, and yet Indonesian sources were saying,

well, they insisted on this. They said that's all you're

getting, if you're coming on to

Indonesian soil, has to be

dealt with between 4 and 12

weeks? It looks like a special

deal and something

preferential, if they hadn't

put up the stand they put up in

front. World and local region's media. When the Prime Minister

says it's consistent, when

UNHCR processing, it really

says it's not out of the

ballpark of that process but

that doesn't translate to say

they haven't got a special deal. Although we don't have

the details of it, it certainly

looks like one. They have got a

special deal. The government

has fast tracked the whole

process for everybody. 90 days

is the goal for those on

Christmas Island. That's blown

out now since the boats have

come in such numbers. If you're getting processed in four

weeks, that's a special deal.

But I'm not sure what else the

government was to do. These people held the government to

ransom. I agree that it does

send a signal if you like that

if you hold out long enough you

will get special treatment but

I really don't know what the

answer was. Those people

couldn't stand to stay aboard

that ship, no-one would've

supported them using the

military to bring them off.

They had to do something. Least they're getting these people

off the boat. That's a good

thing. Many end up being

processed as refugees anyway.

Does it matter whether they

come two months early? The

thing I 've always wondered

about the 'Oceanic Viking' and why Kevin Rudd didn't take the l time before he opened his

mouth on this issue to consider

Labor's policy which has

evolved quite sharply over the

last few years, this is a

one-off case, a rescue at sea

as the Tampa was. John Howard

wanted to make policy on the

back of the Tampa and then

spent the next two terms of

government trying to modify the

policy at the margin. Most

boats that come don't involve

reduces at sea. A rescue at sea

in this insthans has led to

somewhere between a stand-off

and a siege, it's not quite a

siege but I think stand-off is

too soft a term for what's

going on. But I still would've

liked to have seen the

government say special

circumstances ... Therefore

special deal and not run away

from it. They should say

special circumstances Christmas

hide. Either way but no

precedent. It's denying the

bleeding obvious that there was a special deal. The Prime

Minister was in India, talking

about the Indian students being

bashed up in Australia. And he

came one this scheme or at

least he said there was a

scheme where they'd invite

Indian students to barbecues in

Australia, instraight them into

Australian homes. They put a

press release then withdrew

it. Rotary in Australia, who are a fantastic organisation,

have put together this

proposal. We're just backing

'em in. Rotary's idea, he said.

But it wasn't. According to

Rotary it was his idea. Now again ... How quickly they

poll everything he said. The

Neil Mitchell interview and the

press release ... He doesn't

like being on the wrong side of

the an argument. The whole

asylum seekers thing has put a

lot of focus on the basic flaw

with the Indonesian plan.

Indonesia is not a signature

tree to the convention on

refugees. Our position is based

on trying to put people in

detention in a country that's

not a signatory. You shouldn't

be doing that. Malcolm

Turnbull said on non-permanent

visas, he assaulted them safe

haven visas Let's deconstruct

this phrase. Non-permanent visa

for unauthorised arrival. A

third negative in there! An

or-Walian record. The reality

is not lovely. Psychiatric say

se.s all over the place

suggesting the people who lived

here on those three year

temporary protection visas were

no less traumatised after three

years. They're terrible. It's a

terrible situation. House

arrest, actually, that's what

it is. It will prove relatively

popular in the electorate. You would say with the Sri Lankan

case, what's going on in Sri

Lankan presumably is a

temporary thing. It's not Iraq,

it's not Afghanistan. It's not

a completely - it's not a

broken country that should get

... There are positive

signs. John McCarthy the high

level Australian diplomat is

over there, the signs coming

back is he thinks the process

is going well. A lot of Australians why I would if there are refugees on

humanitarian grounds coming out

and that humanitarian problem

will be much reduced in a short

period of time, is it such a

ridiculous thing as it's been

written up in the papers that

we offer short-term haven for

people? It's hard to make the

judgment. We said that on

Afghanistan. We gave people

TPVs for Afghanistan. We paid

them to go back home because it

was safe. Some of them are back

on Christmas Island 'cause they

didn't feel so safe. They were

abused, violated, mistreated,

even perhaps disappeared. It's

a very touchy decision to be

making. In the meantime, people

are left in limbo. 90% of them

end up staying on anyway. I think the interesting thing

about Malcolm's new policy is

it's going to be tough, much

tougher than Rudd's policy. So

far the temporary protection

visa or the safe haven visa is

the only element of that

toughness. Is he going to bring

the navy boats in? Will we have an operation at sea again where

the navy butts boats are tugging the asylum seekers'

boats back to Indonesian

waters? The TPVs brought in 1999 didn't stop the boats.

They kept coming for the next

two years. Malcolm Turnbull

has picked another fight within

his own party by doing this.

But on the other hand, he's

finally given something to the dissidents on climate change.

That is, Nick Minchin and his

people. Which one do you think

works in his favour? Better to

have this fresh fight for the

sake of getting some on the

right back on side? I always

wonder with a politician which

one is the real Malcolm

speaking. He speaks on the ETS,

not on border protection. His

slogan is we're going to stop

the boats. No government can do

that it's a nice thing to send

out to the electorate to say,

vote for us, we'll stop the

boats. I think the electorate

is much more sophisticated on

these topics. If they say

Malcolm Turnbull being a phoney

tough and then having them like

Petro Georgiou stand him up in

the party room, I think this

was a fight he didn't need to

have. He could kept it on Kevin

Rudd and said show house how

you will stop the boats.

Background and analysis on this

and other topics from political commentator with the

'Australian' Paul Kelly. Good

morning. Just open where the

panel opened on the special

deal. How did you see it? I

think Kevin Rudd is unwise to

say it there is no special

deal. This is is a one-off.

The government's been telling

us for weeks it's a one-off.

The evidence suggests there are

special arrangements. Frankly

government has been desperate

to get these people off the

boat. It still has 56 on board.

The saga goes on. I think the

point to make is that the

government said that people

will be reprocess ed and

resettled within a 12 weeks.

Now that's a better arrangement

than currently applies for

asylum seekers in Indonesia.

The minister Chris Evans also

said most of those people would

come to Australia. Praent we

take about a third of the

asylum seekers from Indonesia

who are found to be refugees. I

think that the argument is that

it is a special arrangement.

Well, as I say, we shouldn't be

surprised. The government's got

to solve this problem. But it

has to get people off the boat

and then it has to get them out of Indonesia. Malcolm

Turnbull's initiative, do you

think he needed to make

it? This is interesting. It's a

change of tactics and a change

of policy. Turnbull has been

under pressure here from the

right wing. Turnbull has been

successfully attacking Kevin

Rudd's policy, but he himself

has also been under attack for

being Rudd-light when it comes

to asylum seekers particularly

on radio. He has tried to put

something fresh on the table.

Arguing that the opposition is

genuine about wanting to stop

the boats. The point about the

temporary visas is this is very

much a reversion to what John

Howard did. John Howard simply

protection visas. The evidence

suggests that was not

effective. But in a sense that

doesn't matter for Malcolm

Turnbull, because this is very

much about the politics of

gesture. He's now got a sharp

point of difference between

himself and Kevin Rudd. I think

overall, there's still a lot of

overlap between the two men on asylum seeker policy. Malcolm

Turnbull's got to be careful.

This latest announcement

doesn't lead to more public

dissension inside the Liberal Party. Speaking of that,

climate change. That comes up

for a vote this week. Suddenly

that debate within the Liberal

Party is being held against the background of the 'Four Corners' program during the

week, and it was this comment

from Nick Minchin that really

set the cat among the

pigeons. If the question is, do

people believe or not believe

that human beings are causing,

are the main cause of the

planet warming, then I would

say a majority don't accept

that position. How did that go

down with Malcolm

Turnbull? Malcolm Turnbull was

infuriated by that comment.

Also dismayed by it. It not

just exposes the open divisions

inside the Liberal Party about

climate change but it does

something else. It's nature of

those divisions which was the

problem on this particular occasion. Because Nick Minchin

went to the science. He went to

the science and he's implying

that a lot of Liberals or most

Liberals don't believe the

science. Now if there's one

thing Malcolm Turnbull's been

on about as leader, it's trying

to be constructive, accepting

the reality of climate change

and devise constructive

policies, and now, the Liberal

Party is exposed to the

traditional Labor attack, that

it's a bunch of sceptics and

deniers on climate change.

Turnbull's even speculated to

Champions Leagues whether or

not Labor will use this Minchin

grab in the government's

election campaign TV material.

So I think the message overall

is that the ideological divisions inside the Liberal

Party on this issue run deep.

That Nick Minchin and his

supporters won't lightly roll

over and support the government's emissions trading

scheme and that sooner or

later, probably sooner, Malcolm

Turnbull is heading towards a real internal party

showdown. Paul Kelly, thank

you. And therein lies the

problem. He come up with a deal

on agriculture but if the

objection is the science, any deal on agriculture doesn't make any difference. Barnaby

Joyce this morning said, look,

can you burn down a quarter of

my house and I'm supposed to be

OK with that? That's not the

problem. You are going to burn

my house down anyway. It's

nonsense. It's like they've forgotten the last election and

the lesson from the last election, where John Howard

even moved to the point of

accept ing the science. We now

have Ian Macfarlane who was a sceptic last time around saying

he is persuaded by the science.

This is really damaging for the

coalition. George just

mentioned when he saw that grab

there the next ad . Then Paul

said the same thing. I think it

is a damaging grab. No wonder

Malcolm Turnbull is absolutely

fuming about it. But I'm sure

Nick Minchin believes it. Why

is he doing it? He believes

it. Is he reminding the party

that he is a significant figure

and he's still an important voice within the

coalition? He's not

grandstanding. This is a fight

for the ideological direction.

Liberal Party. He is a

conviction politician. He is.

You gotta give them that. But

on this issue, the best test of

this is what Kevin Rudd yells at. Kevin Rudd doesn't yell at

many voters. He has yelled at

celebrity chefs, he has yelled

at asylum seekers and climate

change sceptics. He has yelled

at people smugglers, not asylum seekers. Sorry. Maybe I was

listening to the dog whistle at

that point. I thought he meant

asylum seekers. The thing that

could surprise quite a few

viewers out there, that the

signals coming out in the last

few days and we saw that from

very rehacksed Penny Wong on

this issue on ETS just then,

most likely there will be a

deal between the government and

the opposition on an ETS, which will go to Parliament in the

next couple of weeks. We'll

strike a deal. The general

political debate hasn't really

caught up to that's now the

likely outcome. As a result of

that you probably do get

... Hang on, they'll strike a

deal with Malcolm Turnbull, but

will he deliver in the party

room? Into then you get a split

in the coalition. And this will

be - that will be the big

thing. They only need a small

number of senators to go ...

It's inevitable you get a split

in the coalition. I think

Turnbull must be calculating that it's a minority split.

It's not a majority

split. What's your best guess about numbers in the Senate in

the end? He will get enough

but it will be humiliating. Of

course. I think the tragedy of

this is that it lets the

government focus on this and oh

we are negotiating in good

faith, when there are lots of questions to be asked an lots

of improvements that could be

made to the government's model.

That's what the Greens are on B

I can understand Penny Wong

doesn't want to get bogged down

in an argument about 45%

targets but there's lots of

positive changes within the

Greens' amendments that could

make this Bill better. The

government could be talking

positively and leading the

community on climate change. If

we move sooner, it's letter.

There are lots of new energy

industries that can grow up

through thing. This can be a

positive thing and we don't

hear much of that. Time to ing

chat topic. Books. The

Productivity Commission made a recommendation, essentially

they wanted to make books

cheaper to Australian consumers

by allowing some of these

cheaper books to come in from

overseas. Not going to

happen? The issue here is

globally with books, CDs,

computer software, the sort of

global industry tries to divide

up the world. North America is

very competitive. They get low

prices. If they can divide up

Australia away from that we're

not as competitive. The

recommendation of the Productivity Commission is to

break down that barrier so

there is legitimate copyrighted

books in the US at a cheap

price they can be imimportanted

into Australia. The government

has shade no. There is a couple

of printing factories and they

might lose out. A couple of

printing factories is

incredible ... Save Labor

seats. All the things that are

going on in the world, that a

government decision which would reduce the supply of books and

books can be very highly priced

in Australia, textbooks, where

is Julia Gillard's Education

Revolution? We'd get lower

prices for textbooks. It'd be a

pro-consumer thing, they say no

because of a couple of

interwering presses. What does

that say about the Education

Revolution? Surely absolutely

krit to learning is reading books. Here is an opportunity

to make ... I have a different

take on this it's not just

about the jobs in the printing

presses. It is a cultural

issue. In the same way we

insist on local content on our

television, the same way we

subsidise farmers, we want

that part of Australia . There

is a bit of that, but let's

face. In a couple of weirs,

books schmooks. The ex-book

will be the thing. We won't be

buying books like we're buying

CDs. That's already happening

in America. The iTunes shop is

selling books. I don't think

anywhere near to the same

extent. It's going to happen.

That will a big impact on

education, for instance. The

interesting thing here is that

Cabinet didn't come up with a

cost-cutting proposal. It was

going to maintain protection,

it didn't even make a gesture

towards the consumer argument.

That was the thing I thought

was most fascinating about

it. Consumers aren't as

organised of course. If you saw

the Finance Minister, his

concession is that people are

already ordering on-line and

we're getting I he books.

That's the way of the

future. If that's the case, why

maintain the barrier? If it's

all going to go on-line, how

does the barrier help

Australian industries? What

does that do for the book

stores and all the people that

they employ? If that's going to

be the trend? The Mary River

and the dam decision in

Queensland. It's not often that

Peter Garrett is applauded by

Bob Brown and Barnaby

Joyce? Not often that Peter

Garrett gets to lead an issue

on behalf of this government.

He had a win. I think Anna

Bligh, she may appear unhappy

but I think she is rapt that

the thing is off the table for

her. Now the next negotiation

can be about how much cash the

Commonwealth can kick in.

Humiliating for here in the

short term, though? It is but

they don't have to face an

election for another few years. I agree with George.

This is really unpopular. It

was a difficult, sensitive

seats A nightmare for her. In

the end it wasn't the creatures

mainly small they were thinking

of. It was the 2 or 300 people

who had to be moved to make way

for the dam? If that's the

case it's another very weak

decision. It used to be the

case in Australia you would say

if there's an election, I smell

a dam coming on. This used to

be a good thing. But we don't

build dams any more. South-east

Queensland of course with 35

million people in Australia by

2049, fastest growing urban

area in a wider urban area in

Australia, as Anna Bligh says,

this is not pristine

wilderness. This has been

farmland for generations. You

have to have some water supply

there. Are we going to make it all desalination

plants? Apparently. That uses

more electricity, it will be

much higher cost. There must be

a way, no doubt Peter Garrett

... Are the dams the best way

these days, though? I don't

know. Recycled water? There