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'd say # Rain, rain, go away # Come again another day # Hey, hey # Hey, hey # Have you ever # Hey-o # Ever felt like this?

# Have strange things happened? # Are you going round the twist? # Have you ever # Ever felt like this? # Have strange things happened? # Are you going round the twist? # Rain, rain, go away # Come again another day # Day-o # I can hear myself say # "This is not my day"

# I'm saying, "What the hey" # "You won't believe me anyway" # I can hear myself say # "This is not my day" # I'm saying, "What the hey" # "You won't believe me anyway" # Have you ever # Ever felt like this? # Have strange things happened? # Are you going round the twist? # Have you ever # Ever felt like this?

# Have strange things happened? # Are you going round the twist? round the twist? # # Are you going


CC Good morning, welm to

Insiders. It's not often a

report released in Britain

impacts so profoundly on the

discussion in Australia. But

this week climate change was

the dochl nant issue in

parliament. It warned not just

of a environmental catastrophe

but of an economic failure

worse than the Great Depression. The Prime Minister

warned his colleagues not to be

mesmerise ed by this and he would approach it with

practical measures. But laub

says the Government is froze nn

time while the globe warms

around it. We enter this debate

with this enormous god given

great endowment of fossil fuel, this

great resource we've been given

by providence. Are we going to

throw it away? Of course not.

We're going to sensibly reduce

the greenhouse gas emission. I

say no to the old failed Kyoto

because it didn't include the

world's major emitters. I

certainly would say yes to a

new Kyoto because a new Kyoto

could only be on the basis that

it would have everybody in and

if everybody's in I'm prepared

to lead Australia

to lead Australia in. If we all

take that attitude, that is

yours, Prime Minister, then

there will be no progress at

all and we'll just sleep walk

to oblivion. Prime Minister,

hasn't your climate change scepticism held back global

action to avoid dangerous

climate change? I'm absolutely fair dinkum about dealing with the consequences

of climate change. When we're

elected to office, we will fix this. Now there's one

this. Now there's one very

ambitious election promise to.

Debate the politics of global

warming this morning, the

panel, Virginia Trioli, George

Megalogenis and Andrew Bolt.

But we'll here from the

Environment Minister Ian

Campbell. That's Insiders. And

then on Inside Business the

10 clonth guest is David Morgan and then

10 clonth 30 a Melbourne Cup

special on 'Offsiders'. Dr

Turf, Gerard Whateley and John

Harms will try to find you the

winner. That's all coming up

overnight it's good morning, but first for the latest news

Kate Arnott. Good morning. The

Prime Minister's office has

confirmed reports he's called

an emergency water

an emergency water summit in

Canberra on Tuesday. The

Premiers of NSW, Victoria and

SA will attend the summit amid

fears irrigated agriculture in

the Murray-Darling basin faces

collapse next year. River flows

into the basin this year have

been half of the previous

record low water level. The

Iraqi capital will go into lock

down later today ahead of a

smented verdict in the first down later today ahead of a

friel of Saddam Hussein. Baghdad International Airport

will be closed and troops have

been put on alert for any violence. The Prime Minister

says he hopes the former Iraqi

leader gets what he deserves.

Saddam could be sentenced to

death if he's found responsible

for the killing of 148 Shi'ites

in 1982. There's been more

bloodshed in the Gaza Strip as

Israel continues its offensive

Israel continues its offensive

there. Seven Palestinians were

killed overnight bringing to 42

the number of people who've

died in the last four days. And

Iran's military has fired

dozens of missiles during a war

games exercise aimed at

demonstrating the country's

ability to defend ilts. The UN

Security Council is considering

imposing sanctions on Iran

which has ignored demands to

stop enriching

uranium. Australian umpire stop enriching

Darrel Hair has been sacked by the International Cricket

Council. The ICC's board says

it lost confidence in Hair

after the ball-tampering row

with Pakistan. I spoke to Darryl yesterday after that

decision was made. I have told

him about that. He was very

disappointed. Heir's contract

March wasn't due to expire until

March 2008. Staying with

cricket and Australia is set to

meet the West Indies in

tonight's final of the

Champions Trophy in India.

Ricky Ponting believes his side

can improve enough to win

Australia's first ever

Champions Trophy title. We

obviously feel the last couple

of weeks we've played good cricket so hopefully you'll see

our best performance for the

tournament tomorrow. The

Kangaroos suffered a shock loss

in their rugby

in their rugby league

Tri-Nations match against Great

Britain last night. The Lions

scored 4-2 tries. To rugby

union and the Wallabies fouingt

out a thrilling 29-point draw

with Wales overnight in their

one-off Test. Welsh fly half

James Hook sealed the draw with

a penl tcialing kick in the

71st minute. And

71st minute. And in racing the

Melbourne Cup barrier draw took

place last night with the

highly fancied Tawqeet drawing

fraifrably in 9. The 3-year-old

is aiming to create history on

Tuesday by being the first

horse to win the Victoria Derby

Melbourne Cup dunl double in 65

years. And that thr will be

more sport later this morning

look at with 'Offsiders'. And now for a

look at the weather.

And that's the news for now,

Barrie. I'll be acat

11:00. Thank you. And now we're

joined as always on a Sunday

morning by Paul Kelly,

political commentator with the morning by Paul Kelly,

'Australian'. Good

morning. Good morning. The

Stern report gained prominence

in this country. In the blink

of an eye it became the

definitive document on climate

change. It sure did. This was a brilliant exercise in politics

by Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

Stern delivered exactly the

sort of report they wanted.

Tony Blair said it was the most

important document that had

come across his desk as prime

minister. The impact

minister. The impact on this

country has been extraordinary.

I think the real importance of

the Stern report is that it

brings economics of climate

change right to the centre

stage. The debate now is about

pricing, it's about an

emissions trading regime which

is the real key to the solution. These are very

welcome changes and I think

they would alter the politics

of climate change as well. Stern

Stern shows that if you believe

there's got to be a radical

turn around in emissions, then

in order to achieve that what

you need in fact, is a

significant change in the price

effect and that, of course,

will impact on consumers and

impact on the political system.

I think this is one of the

problems for the algore

believers because if you think

there's a very radical problem

then the solution also is going

then the solution also is going

to be radical , particularly on

the pricing side. Stern's

solution is for there to be a

truly global emissions trading

system. I think he's right

about that. Certainly in a

theoretical sense that is the

way to go. The problem is, it

seems to me, that over the

course of the next 10 years there's very little chance of

all nations in the world

agreeing to sign up to such a system and the

system and the idea, in

particular, Barrie, that the

developing world led by China

and India will significantly

compromise on their industrial

revolution which is

transforming the lives of 3

billion people in order to take

a tough line to get a cooler

planet. That is an heroic but I

think at the end of the day

unlikely result. So given the

run that this report did get

then, the Prime Minister seemed

then, the Prime Minister seemed

to give it some credibility, in fact. Did he have no choice in

the matter? Well he had no choice but John Howard was

caught flat footed. He's always

caught flat footed on these

debates. He's been outpaced, I

think, by the weather and by

public opinion. I think the

Australian public don't really

understand the Government's

position on Kyoto. It's

committed to achieving the Australian target

Australian target but it won't

commit to the process. I think

that ultimately has always been

a most unconvincing position.

John Howard does recognise

there's a problem. His solution

is technology, to invest in new

technology to try and get to

clean coal and possibly nuclear

power down the track. For a

government that believes in

markets, this is not a market-based solution and

that's one of the differences

between Howard and Kim Beazley.

The Government opposes and

emissions trading regime.

Having said all that though, I

think the Prime Minister is on

firm ground when he argues very

strongly that his government

won't shut down the great

Australian energy industries of

coal and gas, that it won't

significantly compromise these

industries by tax regime which

forces investment offshore.

This is a sound position, it

would be an act of economic

vandalism for any Australian

government to cut back on these

industries thereby allowing the

developing world and China burn

more coal. That hurts Australia

and it doesn't solve the

problem of global warming. In

fact it only makes it worse. So

from Kim Beazley's point of

view, does he get a walk-up

view, does he get a walk-up

start on this issue? This

h This was a good week for

Belize. The Stern report is

good news for the Labor Party.

I think essentially Kim Beazley has tried to do two different

things here. First of all he's

tried to seize the climate

change position for the Labor

Party, argue that the Labor

Party is the party that's

serious about this, you can

trust Labor. This led, of

course, to his immortal line

this week that I'll fix global

this week that I'll fix global

warming. He argues that Labor

will sign Kyoto, Labor believes

in an emission trading regime,

you can trust the Labor Party

end of the day, what he's on this and of course, at the

looking at here is the Green

vote. On the other hand, Kim

Beazley does recognise the trap

which John Howard is setting

for him. At the end of the week

he was quite explicit in

think Labor rejecting a carbon tax and I

think Labor will be very, very

prudent in terms of this debate

about changed investment. It

won't want to be accused of

losing jobs in the energy

sector. So Kim Beazley will try

and walk both sides of the

fence. There's one point though

- while he oppose s a carbon

tax, support for an emission

trading regime with caps is a

tax, there's no doubt, that

that is a price signal which

that is a price signal which is

achieved by a de facto tax. So

an emissions trading regime, if

you like s the tax you have

when you're not having a

tax. And that's certainly where

the debate is headed so what

happens to Kyoto as a debate?

To sign or not to sign, is that

still a critical issue? I think

it's fading away, Barrie. The

point to make about Kyoto is,

Kyoto is a really powerful

political symbol but it's a

political symbol but it's a flawed project. Kyoto is an

article faith in Europe but not

nearly as popular in the rest

of the world. If we look at

what's happening under Kyoto at

the moment, it's going to make,

despite all the talk and

clamour, Kyoto will make very little actual difference to

global warming. A number of the

nations who have signed up

won't meet their targets in

such cases such as Canada. This

is just an embarrassment. The really important

really important thing is what

happens post Kyoto. Post 2012

when we have to negotiate a new

global arrangement. I mean the

point to make about Kyoto at

the moment is regardless of

what the problem is, Kyoto

isn't the solution. The

question is whether the world

can agree on a better solution

beyond 2012 but we do need to

be realistic about this.

be realistic about this. We

need to remember that each 10

days China is commissioning a

new coal-fired power plant,

that China is planning to

commission hundreds of these

plants over the next several

year, that China will continue

to grow at 10% a year and that

the morality of this debate is

very complex. The developing

world says to the rich nations

the last well look, you got rich over

the last 150 years by using

cheap energy, don't start

telling us that we can't also

get rich by using cheap energy.

So I think it's a very

complicated debate in moral

terms. Paul Kelly, thanks for

your time this morning. Thanks,

Barrie. And now to our program

guest and this week with

climate change far and away the

dominant issue we're joined

from Perth by the Minister for The environment,

The environment, Senator Ian

Campbell. Minister, good

morning. Good morning,

Barrie. What do you expect or

what role do you expect to play

at the Nairobi conference given

that Australia isn't exactly on

the inside of the system? Well

I think that's a misconception.

We played an inebly

constructive role last year, both at the friends of the

very small group of the president meeting which is a

environment ministers within

the UN framework.

the UN framework. We pushed the

concept of a beyond Kyoto post

Kyoto framework. We pushed the

concept of a multitrack

approach, not just putting all

your eggs in the one Kyoto

basket but having a number of

dialogues and we ended up

achieving this dialogue on

future action which is one of

the ways we can in fact solve

some of the problems that Paul

Kelly's alluded to, getting the

developed and developing

ended countries together and we've

ended up chairing that dialogue

or co-chairing it, should I say with South Africa. So we'll continue to work in a

constructive way. We are deeply engaged internationally and we are respected, quite

frankly. But before you move on

to what next after Kyoto,

surely you can negotiate special conditions for Australia better if you're

inside the system? Well, we are

right inside the Sam, Barrie. I

think this sort of rubbish that

Labor puts around that we don't have a seat

have a seat at the table is

just that. Australia is well

respected. We have strong relationships with all of the

key players and I think one of

Australia's special places

because of the good work that

the Prime Minister and the

Australia's international Foreign Minister have done on

relations is that we're deeply

trusted by the US, we're also

trusted by the UK and we have a

very strong relationship, particularly around climate change issues, with

change issues, with China and

as Paul Kelly said, they're

building a power station every

10 days. They're also building

a city the size of Brisbane

every month. So that's sort of

relationship Australia has in

both practical terms and in

terms of trust is quite useful around the international talks

on climate change. On Kyoto

itself though, if you are

striving to meet the Kyoto

targets, then why not sign up?

Where's the

Where's the downside? Well, the

downside is firstly it's not

environmentally effective,

secondly that at the time the

decision was made there were

severe risks that signing up to

this could harm the Australian

economy. The Premier of Western

Australia made the point in

yesterday's West Australian

newspaper that signing up to an

agreement where Australia's

carbon emissions from our gas

exports are actually measured

against Australia's account,

however the gas that we export

into a place like China or

North America or Japan in fact

helps alleviate greenhouse gas

emissions because gas replacing

coal or oil will reduce

greenhouse gas emietion by 40

to 60% is clearly not an

agreement that works in

Australia's interest. So the cabinet then made a decision

cabinet then made a decision that works in Australia's

interest. It says we will meet

a Kyoto target. We were serious

about reducing greenhouse gas

emission an we're serious about

doing our share of the work but it salts says internationally

we need an agreement. The Prime

Minister said we need an

agreement that works and not

just as Paul Kelly says is a

blit Cal slogan. That's where

the confusion sets in. You say

you don't sign

you don't sign Kyoto because it

could harm Australia's economy

yet you meet the targets.

You're not suggesting the

economy has been harmed by

that? What we're showing ,

Barrie, is that through a

series of sensible measure,

practical measures right across

Australia that we can decouple

economic activity have

greenhouse gas emissions and

we've been successful at doing that. We wanted to demonstrate

to the world and to the

Australian people we were

serious about reducing

greenhouse gas emissions. We're

trying to hit that 108% target.

It's not going to be easy and -

but we remain complited. We

also remain committed to a new

Kyoto, a Kyoto that's effective

in reducing greenhouse gas

emissions, not the one that

we've got at the moment which

has seen greenhouse gas

emissions rise by 40%. As you

look ahead to a new system, the

Prime Minister says one in all

in, but it's been pointed out

to him that if you take that attitude then nobody would make the first

the first move? Well, again, I think Mr Beazley's wrong again

on this. I don't dhi he's done

his homework. I mean he really

just slogan ears on this. The

world is through the processes

that Australia has been at the

forefront of creating the

dialogue that's co-chaired by

Australia is in fact looking at

how do you bring together all

of the different national

interests into something that

works? Nicholas Stern and Tony

Blair have said in their

reports that a one size fits

all response, the sort of Kyoto

response is unlikely to be

successful at doing that. We

need to recognise the national

circumstances of all of the

different countries, the

different pathways to growth.

We have to respect the fact

that developing countries have

a right to lift their people

out of poverty and so the Kyoto

one size fits all approach is

not going to work. So as you develop another

develop another response, how

long will that take? How much

time have you really got? Well,

I think all of the reports tell

us that we need to be getting substantial reductions by about

the middle of the century. The

work at the international level

needs to really be successful

over the next few years. It is

very, very hard to get 180 odd countries together in -

countries together in - going

in one direction but the

dialogue that we've created,

the G8 process that Blair has

created and Australia is a part

of the Pacific partnership John

Howard has helped create. These

are all constructive ways

forward. In the meantime I

think what the world really

wants to see and what the world

needs is practical action, the

sort of multi$100 million

investments to fast track the development of the biggest

development of the biggest

solar power station here in

Australia, the clean coal

technologies that are really a

matter of life and death,

trying to find economically

sensible and practical projects

both here in Australia and

around the world. The other

thing I think is incredibly

important is to tell the

Australian people the truth

about the costs of this. This

week has shone a light on the

paucity of Labor's arguments.

Mr Beazley and Mr Tanner are

trying to tell people this

won't cost anything, it will

just happen. When you have a

carbon trading system you have

a carbon price. In Europe at

the moment the Labour model is

price is just over 11 you're

os. It's been around $30 US for

most of the last year. That is

a very clear price on all

carbon emissions within that

European trading system and that's what Labor wants in

Australia. I think let's now

have a serious debate about how

big is the cost of a trading

scheme, how much is the carbon

tax. You can call it a carbon

tax, you can call it a trading

system, it's all a cost on

industry and then what are the perverse impacts of putting a

high cost on Australia's energy

sector. The high cost for the

environment is you'll just

shift that activity into

another jurisdiction. But

you're not suggesting that as

the Government response there

will be no cost either to

industry or consumer, there

must be a cost? Absolutely not.

There's a cost already because

we're spending $2 billion of

Australian taxpayers' money on

things like cleaning up coal,

leading the world in terms of

capturing the carbon and then

burying it under the sea.

There's a multibillion dollar

cost on this and we're putting

it on the budget at the moment

and we're telling people how

we're spending it but Mr

Beazley seems to think that you

Beazley seems to think that you

can just say we've got this

magic solution, silver bullet

solution of a carbon trading

scheme. What people need to do

is look at you're, see for a

fact that firstly it's made no

difference to technology and

roll out. In fact most of them

are blowing their Kyoto

targets. Secondly, it'sism

posing a high cost on industry

and thirdly, because it's doing

that, it's actually shifting

greenhouse pollution out of the

trading scheme so it's hurting

the environment. So this idea

that Labor can any longer get

away with the sort of the very

paus policy argument that it's

going to have a trading scheme

and there's no trust involved.

There is a big cost

involved. Beyond the $2 billion

that you mentioned the

taxpayers are spending, at ot

some point you're going to have

to say it's going to cost you

more in electricity, in

transport costs and so on and

so on? I any that is absolutely

right. It is going to cost us

more but what Australia needs

to do is protect our national

interest. Work internationally, recognise that it's a serious problem, recognise that it's

going to cost billions of

dollars to solve this both here

in Australia and trillions

around the world and be honest

with the Australian people

about it and the Australian Government has been very honest

for the past few years. If you

look at our election policy

over two years ago, you will

see all of this spelt out. You

will see all of the prms that

we're now reallying out spelt

out very clearly and back then

we said that the world needs a

beyond Kyoto policy, we need to

develop something that is

better than Kyoto, beyond Kyoto. So as much as all of

this seems new to a lot of the commentators in Australia, a lot of what we're talking about

this week was laid out very

clearly in the energy white

paper but also in our election

policy. And the idea of

electricity and power generally

costing more into the future is

quite deliberate, isn't it n a

sense because by comparison you

want nuclear power to become a

viable alternative down the

track? What you want is clean

technologies, technologies that

produce energy with lower

greenhouse gas emissions to be

competitive down the track.

Nuclear is one of the power

sources, I mean the international energy agency

came out on Friday and said we

need to fast track more nuclear power stations around the world

but you need to look at all of

the technologies. You need more energy efficiency, you need

more renewables, you need clean

coal, you need changes to our transportation systems. There

are about seven groups of

technologies you need to bring

on and you need to do that through subsidies to the capital cost and then

ultimately if you can create an

international system subsidies

to the cost of the power itself

and nuclear is one of those.

You can't fix this problem without using all of the feck

nolings. There is no one -

technologies. There is no one

single technological fix.

Nuclear will be a vital part to

the world's response

though. And I think it's been

known that the energy review will

will have a viable energy in

the next few years. I've seen

the figures that Ian MacFarlane

has seen. There will be a

viable industry in all of the

technologies but certainly in nuclear where you get the

capital side of it right and

the subsidies right. But from

an environment minister's point

of view, I know that you need

nuclear, you need solar, you

need clean coal, you need to be

able to bury carbon under the ground, you need energy

efficiency measure, you need to

make all of our buildings far

more efficient, for example,

you need to change our transportation systems, you

need to get freight off the

roads and on to the rail, for

example. You need to do all of

these things. There is no silver bullet and politicians

who pretend, as Mr Beazley

does, that there's a silver bullet and that it doesn't cost

much, I don't think are going

to survive very long in this

new environment. If it is a

15-year time frame, co-incidentally that will be

just as Germany has completed

its program to phase out all

nuclear reactor, why is that

happening? Interestingly in

Europe, Sweden are reviewing

theirs, Great Britain have just

reviewed theirs and said they

need to enter a new era of

nuclear. Countries around the

world are reevaluating that

because they know, as you look

seriously at the climate change

issue, closing down nuclear

plants and replacing them with

alternatives is environmentally

disastrous. And news today of a

water summit involving the

Federal Government, SA,

Victoria and NSW, clearly looking at the situation along

the Murray-Darling basin, again

is the electorate entitled to

say too little too late? Well,

they're entitled to say we're

in the most prolonged drought

in recorded history. They're

entitled to say that we need to

bring in a whole series of

investments and better

coordination between the two

levels of government to fix it

and they're entitled to look at

the investments that John

Howard has led and John Howard's leadership in bringing

the States together, but we are

working very hard. All of the

States in their own way are

working hard. We need to bring

the community with us. This is

a very serious situation where

you've now got water supplies

to the horticultural industry,

water supplies to towns along

the Murray River and the

Murray-Darling basin all facing a serious set of circumstances.

They want to know that their political leaders are well

focused on the problem and are

coming up with contingency

plans to deal with that and the

meeting on Tuesday will do just

that. There was another

suggestion this morning that

climate change so big that

climate change, water Northern

development ought to be part of

a separate portfolio to the environment? Well, they are

very, very big issues. I think

the Government the dealing with

them in a sensible and diligent

way but the structure of future

government arrangements is

something for others to

speculate on. I will continue

to do my job diligently and passionately protecting Australia's environment and

working internationally to do

that a cross the globe as well. Thanks for your time this

morning, Minister, appreciate it. Thank you.

I'm Gabrielle Ponte and my

husband and I own the antique's

market in Hobart. I think that

both of the major political

parties have been slow to

respond to the issue of climate

change and they will need to

address this issue for the

upcoming election. I do think

Australians are becoming more

aware about climate change and

I think the recent reports that

have been in the media have

really highlighted it to a lot

of people, as well as people

are becoming personally

affected by issues such as the

drought. I don't necessarily

agree with John Howard's

reasoning about not signing the

Kyoto agreement because India

and China are the major

polluters aren't signed to it

as well. I think that is the responsibility of Australia to

sign to it and to do what they

can to reduce the impact of

global change in the world. I

personally think it is the

responsibility of any

government to look at all of

the issues related to climate change and to

change and to do whatever is

possible to make those changes

because of the affect that it

has on humanity and also the

effect that it is going to have

on our children and generations

to come. I don't think either

of the major political parties

are on the front foot of the

climate issue and I think that

it is going to be an issue for

the election because I think a

lot of the general population

are concerned about it and I

think that they will have to

really bring in some policies

that are going to cause some

change to happen. It will be a

factor in how I vote at the next election but I'm sure that

it's not going to be the only

factor. And George, Virginia

and Andrew - George manman-I

thought you captured this well yesterday when

yesterday when you said the Prime Minister is caught

between his natural scepticism

and the electorate sense of foreboding about the health of

the planet. He's trying to find

a middle ground position about

what are essentially two gut

instinct calls. The problem

with that is nothing he says at

the moment carries any

conviction to the electorate. The electorate thinks global

warming is an issue. He sort of

concedes it is but you get the

sense that he still doesn't

believe it is and all the

announcements, and there were a

number of announcements this

week, and for the first time I

think in close to 11 years with

Howard, I'm not actually sure

what his policy was this week,

what his position is this week

and I think that's why it's

amazing week in politics to see

Stern, something in another

country come out, it's not the

first report on climate change

and a lot of the material,

non-economic material is

generally accepted by most

scientist, not all scientist

but most scientist. No, it's

not. You can find - You can

find a critic. This is the

biggest example of the

emperor's new clothes in our

lifetime and we should be very

scared. Listen, there are two

reports that in the last year -

two years that have gone to the

British Government on the economic cost of climate

change. There's the Stern

report, which everyone's going

ape about, and there's this

one. There it is, volume one.

This one, last year said the

cost of climate change was actually relatively low for

rich countries like ours it

could even be zero. No-one

reported that here, almost no-one, and the British

Government didn't like that. So

instead of getting - this is a

houz of Lordings committee,

they got a close adviser to the British chancellor, and

economist, not a climate

scientist, to write his report,

to give them a leg up on a

debate to get votes and taxes

and you believe it and everyone

else believes it. Now this is

the guru. Why didn't they

instead why don't you take this

as the gospel. I don't take

anyone as gospel. Why is this

not reported, why is Stern

treated as the great Goss

Pell? You reported both, didn't

you? I rored both. Want to know

why every journalist says we

should listen to Nick Las Stern

- It's not just the journalists. Politicians have

given it credibility and you

can start with the Prime

Minister who in fact he treated

this very differently to the Al

Gore visit, for example, this

time around he was giving it a

bit of credibility. This is the

problem the Prime Minister

faces at the moment and he's

quite aware of this. He says

climate change is a problem. He

says mankind is contributing to clie hat change because of the

greenhouse gas emissions but

we're not going to do anything

until everybody is in. The

highest per capt a emitter of

green dus house gases is

Australia. When he says the

rest of the world signs up I

will lead Australia in. Which

is the kind of leadership you

want fo see. Stepping away from

that at the moment it's

interesting to note and I think

it's been difficult for a lot

in the media to deal with this

in the last not week or two

weeks or months, through the

long period of this coming is

that the audience, the public

has been here, has been at this

point for a very, very long

time and the politicians have it and Kim Beazley can say all

he likes about I've been there,

I've been there. Well, you

know, maybe up to a point. But

the audience has been there at

this point. And that was

Gabrielle's point off the time.

It's true about water, about

climate change, about emissions about sustainability they've

been on it for ages and even

the media, and I put myself in

this as well. We get reports

every now and again we go "Oh

God, not another one" boring

put nit the bin. People have

been panicked into this. No,

no-one drove them to it. Yes,

they do. I'll give you an

example. It's one of those

interesting examples of them leading. That's because any

time there's a reassuring bit

of news it gets shouted down

and not reported. Here's just

one of - honestly every day there's more examples. Here's

just one. This is the Age

report. This week beautiful one

day, ex-tint the next the

butterfly, because of global

warming. Anyone who relied on

the Age for their news would

not know if global warming is

true and is caused by man,

which is the critical point,

the butterfly will not become

extinct it will become more

abundant according to the

research. And this is what

reports like the house of lords

committee - Scientists are like

the economists, rnt they, What

was the point you were make

sning If Andrew wasn't want to

see it as a problem it's entirely your right but you are

out on your own now. Look, I

actually show you a report,

right, or I could quote the 60

scientists that wrote to the

Canadian prime minister a kum

of months ago. But no-one else

is quoting the reports, just you. That's exactly right.

Stand on the mountain top and keep mounting it. This doesn't

exist? No, it exists but maybe

it doesn't have the same force

and power of the others. No,

that's exactly right. And

interesting point we got from

stern this is week is the cost

of acting is the cost of leaving the thing unchallenged. The house of

lords says the opt sit. Now why

do you treat one as the gospel,

why does Virginia treat one as

the gospel and the other one

she ignores. I take my first

price signal as the journalist

from the Prime Minister and he

thinks climate change isn't an issue. The fundamental role of

a journalist is to be sceptal

and that is what Andrew is

doing. That's all I'm

saying. Andrew I'm going to

surprise you and give full

endorsement about what you're

going to do from here on in as

a journalist. I'm about to

praise you. From here

on. Quick, quick. Camera on

him. From here on I think it's

important to have a sceptic in

this debate but you want to

make it evidence based F you

don't think that there's a

problem, you know, yooef got a

very, very big job ahead of you

to convince everybody Tony

Blair to John Howard to Gordon

Brown who has used this as a

xer xileding in the UK. Here's

the agenda. Thank on. Let

George finish. In the midof

praising you but the thing is

- It was a very good praise,

the only sceptic? It's not

true. I think it's very

important to be hearing a counter argument but I'll give

you a scoop at the moment. Very

important thing is going to

come out in the next month or

so. Some of Australia's top

mining companies,

manufacturers, finance houses,

banks are going to produce a

talking behinds the scenes to pretty big report. They've been

the Prime Minister since April

this year. He's chosen to

ignore their first effort. When

the second effort comes out,

given the debate and the

climate we're in now,

everyone's going to be all over

this like a rash. Report on

what exactly? A report on how

Australian industry can make

climate change and emissions

trading work. Everybody talks

about the costs for industry. I

think you've made your point,

I've let you make your point.

The carpet baggers are in this and now we're quoting

politicians, politicians with

an agenda and business leaders

with a big carpet bag as

experts. Meanwhile real experts

Professor Fred Singer says ace

unlikely the current warning is

much of human component. A

Professor at MI. The University

says the amount found of

warming does not actually

appear that alarming. 60

experiments in climate

scientists wrote to the

Canadian Prime Minister saying

this idea of a climate ka fastify looming, humanity is

the cause, forget it. Neither

of these fears is justified.

Now why do you two insist that

someone like me is on my own

when all this opinion is out

there. OK, Virginia. Can I just

move to the politics which I

think is what we're here to

discuss this morning. It's

interesting to hear Ian

Campbell this morning and I

think he's really right, when

he take asreally broad approach

to what any political party or

any government's response has

to be. A big call from the

public is - because of this and

therefore you know the

coal-fired power and all coal

excavation has to end, has to

end tomorrow. It's not going to

happen and it probably shouldn't happen. Nobody's

saying. That Wait a minute,

that's not true. May I

finish? That's not true. The

interesting approach is that

he's looking at all the elements - investment in any

new strategies, taking an

approach where you look at all

industries, trying to, I guess

there if next 10 year, gee them

up to find some innovative ways

of dealing with this and I

think that's really sensible

and kind of reassuring. I think

election though a scare we'll see in the run up to the

campaign on both sides, clearly

Labor will be talking about the

dooms day scenario and on the

other hand I think the

Government will be talking

about the high cost to the

consumer if Labor's policies

were to be introduced. Greg

Hunt had a go at it this

week. It means in real terms a

massive increase in petrol

prices and a pensioners heating

tax. That is the reality of

what he's proposing. It's

probably going to take on the

Beazley plan a doubling or a

tripling of petrol and energy

prices to make the sort of

changes in emissions that he

wants. Now we're going to see a

lot more of that? Petrol prices

will always be higher under

Labor. That seems to be -

because Ian Campbell just told

us earlier that costs will rise

which was an interesting thing

for the Minister to concede.

John Howard actually said this

week, and there was an

interesting moment on the Sky

television interview he did on

the Thursday where he pretty

much attacked himself in one

answer. He said costs will rise

but people will get used it. A

minute later he he said you

can't say there is a crisis and

people will deal with it. He

was trying to knock off Beazley argue. That people will deal

with it. But they have to face

up to the fact that there will

be a cost on consumers beyond

the taxpayers expenditure on

initiatives? In a market

economy like ours, prices tend

to rise and then businesses are

in competition to try and knock

them down. One of the things

that Kearns me about both the Beazley and the Howard position

is that they're not going to

trust the market to do it. They

want to pick the technology

which usually means if the a

government's making a decision,

the politician is going to make

a decision they'll probably

pick the wrong technology. The

price of carbon, the price of

polluting the atmosphere, the

price of contributing to

greenhouse, there is no price

for doing that now. There is a

price on cleaner technology

because it's competing with a

dirty energy source. Now until

people get used to the idea

that a market mechanism is

probably the best way to deal

with this, and this is where

Stern has taken the debate

forward because the economists

once they hop into it can get

into the usual things of greed

and fear and what's in it for

you and what's in it for

mee. George, please, this is an

a-apocalyptic thing as people

can see when you've raised the

fact that there are people

expressing scepticism they zbet

hailed down. What you're seeing

is a lot of money going into

wasted ideas that will not work

and the Howard Government is

responsible for the first of

them, this $125 million with

the State Government of

taxpayers money given to a

private company to build the

world's biggest solar power

plant that won't work in the

dark and will produce energy

far, far more expensive than

any that's actually on the

market at the moment to power

only a few houses. Now this is

- Agree with you. We're going

to see more of this

money. 175,000 houses, wasn't

it? But not industry, not

industry, and not at night

time. I mean, you know. It's

insane. Why in fact was this

one done and Peter Costello was

on Fran Kelly the other Kay and

he said, "I just announced the biggest funding initiative for

a solar plant in the world" and you think the reason he's done

this for the straight politics

to be able to say climate

change issen issue, here's a

little announcement let's move

on to another debay. The public

have blown the whistle on them

this week because again the PM

this week is talking about a

new Kyoto as if there's a

better one. Kyoto is one of

those buzz words that keeps

coming back and says we want to

plan any plan. The PM is not

into the future game because

she a very practical

politician. At the moment, and

this is one of the strangest

weeks I think in his career.

He's caught trying to be a

politician when people are

looking for some semblance of

principle or a bigger

understanding. Here's the

dilemma. There's a panic out

there that has not been effectively treated by the Howard gvlt in particular, but

it has not been effectively addressed and calmed demoun

down. Now it's like a big wave

and they've got to swing with

it rkts they can't swim against

it. Thruvr you get Howard

Government ministers kowtowing

to a fear they don't actually

share. You get in fact some

Labor senior front benchers who

don't believe this either but

believe it must because it's a

religious fervour fou. You get

business leaders doing the

same, newspaper ed tors push

ing this along even though they

know this is a lot of hoo har

and no-one dares stand up

against it because if they do

they get ridiculed or treated

like vandals. You do concede

that is often running tsunami

style. I wonder, and the issue that was raised in

the'Bulletin' this week by

Laurie oaks as the Labor Party

got the right person at the top

to deal with this and it was

taken up by talkback radio

during the week. Within your

ranks in the parliament you now

have possibly the most I'd

fieable and best known

conservationist in the country

in the form of Peter Garrett.

Where's he He's all over the

place campaigning for us and

he's doing very well. We have

as an environmental spokesman

in Anthony Albanesy a real ter

yr, a real go getter, a bloke

who really fights. So we have

got an excellent environmental

spokesman. That's their

problem. If they think that

they've got a persuasive and

attractive figure in Anthony

alban easy when they've got

someone like Peter Garrett, who

is forceful, who knows his

stuff, my goodness. That was

quite an-ic sphons by Kim

Beazley. He doesn't want to be

bullied into knocking off

Anthony. The factions are still

running it. That's precisely

rieing. It's not alban neezy is

more effective communicator

he's got party power that Garre, the, the doesn't

have. We'll give him 10 seconds

to make his case. During

question time those opposite

said that I wanted to get rid

of fossil fuel. Where there's

one fossil I want to get rid of

and he just spoke in the

debate. There you go, not

bad. That's not a bad line but

if Labor actually polled their

shadow ministry to work out

whether any of them have got a higher profile than Peter

Garrett in the community. Why

did they bring him then? Mark

Latham brought him in. Why is

he there? Malcolm Turnbull is

not going to languish but he's

not going to stay where he is

for too long.. There's now talk

of water summit, well there is

a water summit on Tuesday. On

Cup day. And talk of this new grand portfolio taking grand portfolio taking in water

and whatever, but if Malcolm

Turnbull was to go into that

and Peter Garrett was to shadow

him. The ratings of that

election debate would probably

match or beat the leaders

debate. I'm willing to make

this prediction. Precisely when the issue is going Labor's way

and precisely when the Liberals

are represented by a Senator

Ian Campbell you listen to that, I don't think anyone

would have been impressed by

that. You put your guy who is

going to get someone to cut

through. I think Labor fears

that Garre, the, the say mong

the factional issue, put them

to one side. If Garre, the, the

is there it does become easily

typecast as a crusade and

people will get scared. We're

in the business end now. Do you

believe it that much that you're going to pay real pain you're going to pay real pain

to do something about it. There

are potential leadership

ramifications of moving him

up? For Garre ,, the, the it

would be too soon. Against

Beazley, does it run the risk of Beazley not looking too

good. I think any leader who

turns up and says by the way

it's my shadow minister

industry that's going to carry

debates for me is emasculated.

I not only didn't understand I not only didn't understand

John Howard's position I didn't understand Kim Beazley's

position. We're going to get

our third election of Beazley

versus Howard, these are not future leaders for me for a

future debate and this is a

future debate. No disrespect to

either man. Tenacious politicians and they've been around a long time but this is

an issue that the gut call

again, as I mentioned before

from the electorate, is something bigger than politics

but we're getting politics from

these two guys. We need to move

on and you're talking about

confusing signals. I thought a

slightly confusing signal too

with interest rates the

prospect of a rise to be

decided on Tuesday. John Howard

seems to have staeped that it's

going to happen but Peter

Costello on the other hand was

talking about the boom is over,

was that a signal to the

Reserve Bank? He's trying to

talk the Reserve Bank down. The

idea that the boom is over is

that the revenue's run out, the

sort of win fall revenue is run

out, we'll still have a healthy

surplus. We're not going to

give the money away at the next give the money away at the next

election, that seems to be the

Costello message as well. So if

you're going to raise the

interest rates do it once and

raise it at 0.25%. Don't be

tempted that you might want to

do it all now at 0 bnth 5 which

will scare the living daylights

out of the economy. The way the

market is factoring in rises they think there's a chance of

another one theks year. We

haven't had an interest rate

rise in a deregulated xwhi in an election year an election year before and I

don't know how you manage the

politics and interest rate rise

in an election year and that's

where I think the Government is

trying to talk the reserve

down. I think there is a shift

way in the way the interest

rate issue is handle. Jourds is

still saying interest rates

will be higher under Labor. I

think he says it more now to

irritate than to convince

anyone. I think there's a shift

in the way the media dells with

this ish slew and I think the this ish slew and I think the

interview on Sky news was a

point. Under them rates hit

17%, for housing, we're talking

about, and under us at the

present time they're 7.75. So I

can prove it by a comparison of

what's happened over the last

quarter of a century. But what

did they peak at when you were

Treasurer. Housing rates, they

were subject to a peg,

authorised regulated housing authorised regulated housing rates were subject to a

peg. What did they hit? Under

housing they were pegged at

13%. The regulator rate was

pegged at 13%. It wasn't a very

workable system, I accept that.

In fact it's a system that I

argued to get rid of. Malcolm

Fraser's system. It was Malcolm

I think he tried to get rid of

it but by the end of that answer I was thinking maybe he

was trying to hide something. was trying to hide something.

Look, small business had a much

higher interest rate in 82/83

than they did under Keating. A

quarter of a century ago when you're talking the guy's record

in the last decade, I think

that was a stupid way to answer

the question, he looked shifty

and I'm sure he'll go home and

think how bet tore answer it

next time. A debate about what

he did as Treasurer a quarter a

century ago, just deal with it century ago, just deal with it now. That's the same response

that Lindsay tanner was making

elsewhere this morning. He was

saying 17 years ago. That issue

of our record is 17 years ago.

Can we keep it closer to home. Journalists are entitled

to push him on it and if he's

going to harp back over the

Keating years they're scbietle

to go back just a little

further. I agree but I think

once he gets his formal words

out it will be irrelevant. People

People will judge Howard now

gebs Labor time. I'm not even

sure of that anymore. I think

the real damage will be the

reality of whether we get an

interest rate and how many.

We'll get an interest rate rise

soon but how many before the

next election. I don't know

this quite so clear we'll get

one in the election year. That

will be the key. It won't be

what they say about it it will

be the fact it happen. One

we're getting next week might

be enough. It took Labor about three years to tweak three years to tweak to this.

The Reserve Bank publish this

thing every six months, it's

household debt. It's the real interest rate paid by

households across Australia and

for the last three years it's

passed anything in the Hawk

Keating air quaia era. It took

them a while to get there but

they got there. On the panel

Virginia Trioli, George maing

maing and Andrew Bolt bolt. maing and Andrew Bolt bolt. But

now it's time for Talking Pictures. I'm Michael Bowers

and impictorial editor with the

'Sydney Morning Herald'. I'm talking pictures this morning

with freelance cartoonist Fiona

Katauskas. There's Stern report

on climate change came down

this week and you've drawn a

lovely little cartoon in response to thoured

Government's reaction to it.

Run us through this. Well,

there's a few inconvenient

truths around at the moment so

the paper boy, inconvenient

truths, get your inconvenient

truths. Iraq unfortunately is

an inconvenient truth, saz is

the Stern report and Howard, as

we can see here, is collar up, shoulders up, head

down. Walking forward. In a

similar vain I suppose Mark

Knight who's having a great

year has the Prime Minister year has the Prime Minister - Mike xwlooiingt knight has

the most wonderful attention to sartorial detail for the Prime