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 or accept liability for the accuracy or usefulness of the transcripts.These are copied directly from the broadcaster's website.
7.30 Report -

View in ParlViewView other Segments

test This is a metropolis with over 4 million people. We will not take risks. We'll do what we have
to do to secure the water supply. Tonight - sea water solution. Tastes like water. Very good. On
both sides of the country, desalination is being developed as an answer to the big dry. But is it
sustainable? There are lots of other options that haven't been considered yet, that are far more
sustainable and acceptable in terms of both energy and the environmental impacts associated with
them. This program is captioned live.

Cornelia Rau speaks out

Cornelia Rau speaks out

Reporter: Michael Brissenden

KERRY O'BRIEN: Welcome to the program. Fifteen months after she went missing, Cornelia Rau has
spoken publicly for the first time about her incarceration as a suspected illegal immigrant. Ms Rau
detailed what she described as a gruelling and terrible time and said she'd been treated badly by
both police officers and guards at the Baxter detention centre. More importantly for the
Government, she says perhaps she will be seeking compensation. There has been no response yet from
the Immigration Minister, Amanda Vanstone. But, as political editor Michael Brissenden reports, Ms
Rau's appearance today - erratic though it appeared to be at times - will only add to the pressure
caused by what has become an emotionally charged political issue.

MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: For the critics, the tragic case of Cornelia Rau has come to personify all
that's wrong with Australia's immigrant detention policy. For months now, ever since her plight
first came to public notice, she's been the silent testament to what some, even in the Government's
own ranks, believe is a cruel and unjust policy.

CORNELIA RAU: I don't think Amanda Vanstone would have liked to be in my situation. Like, she would
have liked to have been able to contact a lawyer or contact somebody.

MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: Today, for the first time since her disappearance 15 months ago, Cornelia Rau
spoke for herself. It was a harrowing and, at times, difficult performance to watch.

CORNELIA RAU: I was put into prison because I didn't have my passport on me. My diary got stolen
with my money as well. And my life has been pretty much turned upside down in a year and five
months. I was picked up by police and I was travelling through Queensland, and I wasn't aware that
they normally do that type of thing. Imagine if you just go shopping and you just get, you are
stopped by policemen and they want to see your passport. I just think it's quite incredible. They
took me to prison in Brisbane and held me in the detention for eight months. And within that time,
I got treated very badly. I got kept in a small cell, and it was this cell, and shared courtyard
between people. And I was held as an illegal immigrant.

MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: Cornelia Rau's disappearance raises so many questions. In February, the
Government announced an inquiry, headed by the former Australian Federal Police commissioner Mick
Palmer. That inquiry will now also look at the case of Vivian Alvarez Solon. The past few months
have been challenging for the Minister, Amanda Vanstone. And while the questions keep coming, she
says we'll have to wait for Mick Palmer to conclude his investigation. The inquiry has certainly
allowed the Government to say it is doing something. And while it has provided some valuable
political cover, it's also been criticised. It's being held behind closed doors for a start. The
Opposition and the family have called for it to be public, but the Minister says she's confident
the outcome will get to the bottom of what went wrong.

SENATOR AMANDA VANSTONE, IMMIGRATION MINISTER: Mr Palmer will conduct his investigation privately,
but the findings will be made public. And I am determined that Mr Palmer will be given every bit of
assistance, he certainly will be from the Australian Government, and I feel confident he will be
from the state authorities, to get to the bottom of what happened with Ms Rau, what happened that
shouldn't have happened or what didn't happen that should have happened.

MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: Not surprisingly, Cornelia Rau has a few opinions of her own about what should
and should not have happened.

CORNELIA RAU: In Baxter itself, like, I was put into this area, it was called a red area...

FEMALE REPORTER: Red one.

CORNELIA RAU: Red one, and I, like, once I was walking along the grass, just on the, it was a small
rectangular area, and I just got cornered by this guard and he threw me down on the grass. I had to
put my hand behind my back, and then these other four guards came running up as well, and it was
just quite foul.

FEMALE REPORTER: Was it frustrating that you were trying to get out and the Government didn't seem
to be listening?

CORNELIA RAU: Well, I couldn't get a lawyer there, so, like, unfortunately that was frustrating as
well, like, they didn't give me a chance to get a lawyer. There aren't any phones in different
areas, and you just are at the mercy of the Government. You know, you can't voice your opinion,
because there's nobody to talk to there.

MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: This was Ms Rau's first opportunity to talk publicly. Today was, as she
described it, her first day of freedom. After she was discovered in Baxter detention centre she was
transferred for treatment to the psychiatric wing of the Royal Adelaide Hospital. Despite reports
to the contrary from doctors and her own family, she says she is not mentally ill. But today's
wandering performance was at times hard to follow. Still, she was clear on one important point.

FEMALE REPORTER: Will you seek compensation for what's happened to you from the Australian
Government?

CORNELIA RAU: Yes, definitely, yes.

FEMALE REPORTER: Financial compensation?

CORNELIA RAU: Yes. It has been too gruelling an experience, yeah. It has been terrible.

MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: And a research brief, already prepared by the law section of the parliamentary
library, has suggested any compensation might be substantial. The brief says the legality of her
initial detention will depend on whether police and immigration officials carried out the checks
and inquiries they might reasonably have been expected to make before detaining her. Cornelia Rau's
public appearance came on the same day that Labor sought to apply political pressure to what had,
until recently, been another area of Mr Palmer's responsibility. Before he was called on to
investigate the Cornelia Rau detention, Mick Palmer was inspector of transport security,
responsible for investigating baggage handling at Australian airports. With Schapelle Corby locked
up in Bali, reports of camel suits pinched from passengers' luggage and the recent bust of a
cocaine importing ring allegedly run by baggage handlers, Mr Beazley today suggested Mr Palmer
would've been better kept in his old job.

KIM BEAZLEY, OPPOSITION LEADER: An ex-judge should be doing the inquiry into Cornelia Rau. Mick
Palmer ought to be handling aviation security. That's what he ought to be doing right now. We
confront substantial terrorist threats to this nation, both domestically and internationally. We
require all the inspection processes to be in place and operating all the time. It's not a matter
of politics. This is a matter of defending the national interest.

MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: Of course the trouble for the Government is that the treatment of Cornelia Rau
is a matter of politics, and difficult politics at that.

Experts divided over water shortage solutions

Experts divided over water shortage solutions

Reporter: Sarah Clarke

KERRY O'BRIEN: The images of drought in the bush and the toll it is extracting are stark and
graphic. It's not so visible in the big cities, but severe water shortages are starting to hit
home, with worse to come. Sydney's main catchment has now slipped to its lowest level in years and,
in coming weeks, residents may face further restrictions. Following Perth's lead, Sydney is now
looking to the ocean as its salvation. Perth is already committed to building a desalination plant,
removing the salt from seawater. Sydney is to conduct a feasibility study. But experts are divided,
with some arguing there are more sustainable solutions to our national current water crisis. Sarah
Clarke reports.

RON PAGE, BROKEN HILL MAYOR: Water is like gold out here. We can't survive without it.

SARAH CLARKE: The impact of Australia's big dry is not confined to the bush. With almost half the
country in the grip of drought, city dwellers could soon face tough water restrictions as dam
levels dwindle.

DR CHARLES ESSERY, UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN SYDNEY: We're within two years of being at an all-time
low, where water would literally only be available for drinking. It is a crisis.

SARAH CLARKE: With most of the population living on the coastal fringe, the concept of turning
seawater into fresh water has obvious attractions. Perth has already commissioned a $350 million
desalination plant to eventually supply 15 per cent of its water. And the country's biggest city
will soon follow suit.

FRANK SARTOR, NSW UTILITIES MINISTER: In this current drought, the only last resort that guarantees
water for Sydney would be desalination, for the simple reason that they've got infinite supplies of
water.

SARAH CLARKE: It may be more than a thousand kilometres from the ocean, but the city of Broken Hill
spent $4 million to establish its own desalination plant almost two years ago. At the time, the
city's principal water supply, the Menindee Lakes, was a mere pond and those dregs were salty and
almost undrinkable.

RON PAGE: What was left behind was pelican poo. The water supplier here had to change pelican poo
into water. We had a very bad quality, third world water quality, which killed our plants, killed
our fruit trees and destroyed our hot water systems, our air coolers. It done a huge amount of
damage to our city.

BRIAN STEFFEN, COUNTRY ENERGY: One of the other options, for instance, was to train water in from
Adelaide at a cost of $3 million a month.

SARAH CLARKE: While it may have removed the salt and improved the water's taste, authorities stress
the desalination plant is not a panacea for the city's water needs.

BRIAN STEFFEN: It's a unique situation because it doesn't increase the water supply. It takes the
existing water that we get from the Darling River and treats the water. It's a focus on the quality
of the water rather than the quantity.

SARAH CLARKE: The process used is called reverse osmosis. Salt molecules are squeezed out through a
series of ultrafine membranes. So the water comes along through these pipes?

STEPHEN BASTIAN, COUNTRY ENERGY: Yes, this is the membranes. The water comes through and the clear
water comes out that end, and also the brine as well, and here we have the final product.

SARAH CLARKE: To the taste test?

STEPHEN BASTIAN: Taste test.

SARAH CLARKE: Tastes like water.

STEPHEN BASTIAN: Very good.

SARAH CLARKE: Six million litres of water can be turned around here every day - a quarter of the
city's daily needs. While it's cheaper than bringing water in by rail, it takes a million watts of
electricity to produce a million litres of fresh water, and every megawatt of electricity produces
one tonne of greenhouse gas.

STEPHEN BASTIAN: They are high-energy users. I can't put a dollar figure on it, but it is quite a
lot more than conventional water treatment.

DR CHARLES ESSERY: Traditionally, the cost of water, if it's a dollar, the cost of water, there's
normally a dollar cost in energy.

SARAH CLARKE: Not everyone sees desalination as the best response to a looming water crisis.
Charles Essery was a senior executive at Sydney Water and also advised the New South Wales
Government on water issues. But after what he describes as a difference of opinion over the state's
water strategy, he now works as an independent consultant.

DR CHARLES ESSERY: There are lots of other options that haven't been considered yet that are far
more sustainable and far more acceptable in terms of both energy and the environmental impacts
associated with them.

SARAH CLARKE: In fact, he believes Sydney's solution is far more obvious. Every year, the city
sends twice as much fresh water out to sea as stormwater run-off than actually flows into its dams.
Capturing that run-off, he says, would be a far better choice.

DR CHARLES ESSERY: We've got plenty of water. There is no shortage of water along the east coast.
There's certainly no shortage of water in Sydney but we just don't recycle it. Water is recyclable.
It is the only natural resource we use that can be used time and time again. But we're not doing
anything with that in Sydney.

FRANK SARTOR: The truth is that if you did reuse water from the edge of Sydney's coastline and
pumped it all the way back to Warragamba, it would actually cost more and use almost as much
energy.

SARAH CLARKE: Even Broken Hill acknowledges that desalination is not the sole solution. Ninety per
cent of the city's waste water is recycled for irrigation. But the New South Wales Government
maintains that such measures will not fully address Sydney's water needs.

FRANK SARTOR: The problem with recycling across the entire residential system, the existing
residential suburbs, is that you'd need a second set of pipes. You'd need a second set of pipes and
that's hugely expensive and would take 10 years to build.

SARAH CLARKE: State Utilities Minister Frank Sartor has committed $4 million to a preliminary study
for a desalination plant.

FRANK SARTOR: This is a metropolis with over 4 million people. We will not take risks. We will do
what we have to do to secure the water supply.

SARAH CLARKE: With no end to the drought in sight, the debate on the best way to provide one of the
most basic resources can only intensify.

DR CHARLES ESSERY: To really get access to security, we must recycle. That's the most sensible
thing for Sydney, and it's the most sensible thing for many cities in the rest of the world.

FRANK SARTOR: But if you come to a last resort and you ask the people of Sydney, "Do you want to
have this source of water or risk not having water?" I know what the people of Sydney would say.

Terrorism is the weapon of the weak: expert

Terrorism is the weapon of the weak: Dyer

Reporter: Kerry O'Brien

KERRY O'BRIEN: Americans who coped with the shock and pain of the September 11 attack might not
easily embrace the proposition that, in the overall history of war, modern terrorism is merely "the
weapon of the weak". That it can make a splash, but fundamentally remains weak. That is the view of
Canadian war historian Gwynne Dyer, who 20 years ago wrote a book and seven-part BBC television
series on the nature of war through the ages. He's here for Sydney Writers' Week to promote his
revised edition. Dyer observes that after the end of the Cold War, we're enjoying what might prove
to be an Indian summer. That total war is only sleeping. He says the more civilised we've become,
the more deadly we are at killing. I spoke with Gwynne Dyer earlier today.

Gwynne Dyer, is there anything in human behaviour since Neanderthal man that gives you cause for
hope that we have it in us to avoid war, to actually manage a lasting peace?

GWYNNE DYER, AUTHOR: Well, one of the things that's become clear over the last 20 years, the
anthropologists have finally come clean, we've always fought wars, we fought wars before we were
civilised, we fought wars before we were human, any primate who's a predator has fought wars, I
mean Jane Goodall and so on finding out about the chimpanzees of Tanzania. So we inherited war and
it's, if not in the genes, so deep in the culture that you're not going to dig it out easily.

KERRY O'BRIEN: Well, it would seem that the more civilised we've become, the deadlier we've become.

GWYNNE DYER: History is mostly the history of winners, and societies that were good at war didn't
lose too many people, and so war is certainly not regarded as a problem until you hit the 19th
Century. But you start feeding in the new technologies, the new industry, the new wealth, and the
weapons become so efficient at killing that suddenly the same old behaviour becomes completely
counter productive. I mean 55 million people were killed in the Second World War. You're dropping
nuclear weapons on cities by then. You gotta stop this now.

KERRY O'BRIEN: You talk about three things which present the greatest threat to global peace. The
first is population growth in the environment, and the environment. Can you elaborate on that
briefly?

GWYNNE DYER: The big population growth's over - we went from 1 billion to 6 billion in the last 200
years - we're never gonna double the population again even, but we are now industrialising and
raising the consumption and living standards of at least half of those 6 billion, so the pressure
will continue to mount. We're probably putting about 60 times the pressure on the environment we
did in 1800, and it's starting to show in all sorts of ways.

KERRY O'BRIEN: The second risk that you see relates to new world powers emerging to change the
global balance, which has led to war in the past. China, I guess, is an obvious example.

GWYNNE DYER: China and India is coming too. The traditional pattern, if you think about Germany at
the end of the 19th Century or the French coming out of the woodwork in the early 18th Century, is
that the new great power has got to fight its way into the system, push aside the old great powers
who resist demotion. Now, the British actually managed not to have that kind of war with the
Americans, when the baton passed the last time. It would be really nice if the Americans could
avoid having a war with the Chinese this time. And it's really not necessary, because in fact,
China's not going to be a superpower that ever puts America or indeed India in the shade. What
you're heading for is a multi-powered world of sort of three really great powers by the middle of
this century - India, China and America. So there's no one power you must fear. Everybody else has
got to shuffle over a bit and make room, and the system will be got in place, the United Nations,
the Security Council, current state of international laws is actually well designed to let this
happen without the kind of cataclysm we had with Germany in the 20th Century. But, you know, you do
have to accept, if you're America, that you're gonna lose your sole superpower status and that's
something they're having a bit of trouble with.

KERRY O'BRIEN: You don't mention terrorism in your major risks to global peace. Why not?

GWYNNE DYER: Well, because it isn't. I mean, terrorism is in fact the weapon of the weak. And
although they can make a splash, they remain weak. I mean, states are infinitely more powerful
actors than terrorists. If you think about, you know, let's take Al Qaeda if it still really
exists. It's more an idea and a network than an organisation. What does it really have at its
disposal? It's probably got somewhere between 5,000 and 20,000 activists. That's compared to 1.4
million people in the US armed forces and 52,000 people in the Australian armed forces, and a
Government with, you know, a billion dollars a day, $10 billion a day of income to play with.
They're minor actors. They can make a splash. Make a headline. But the only real strategy that any
terrorist group's got is prod the opponent in exactly the right place where he's very vulnerable
and will overreact, and trick him into striking back massively in ways that played into your hands.
All terrorism is a kind of political jujitsu. They don't have the ability to harm us, though they
can trick us into doing things that will harm us.

KERRY O'BRIEN: You mean on a big scale?

GWYNNE DYER: Yes.

KERRY O'BRIEN: On September 11 and the threat of Al Qaeda, you say on the one hand that Osama bin
Laden has had a victory of sorts over America in what has played out since, but you don't give him
much hope of achieving his ultimate goal?

GWYNNE DYER: Well I mean, in the sense, the kind of terrorist strategy I was just talking about,
Osama bin Laden has actually suckered the United States into invading two Muslim countries in the
last three and a half years. American troops, and Australian troops to some extent, are now
occupying countries with 50 million very unhappy Muslims in them, and the images that are coming
out of places like Abu Ghraib are radicalising other Muslims, pushing them into the arms of the
extremists, which was the point of the whole operation.

KERRY O'BRIEN: You really think that's what Osama bin Laden was after?

GWYNNE DYER: Well, I mean, he is part of a movement that's spent the last 30 years trying to
overthrow secular Arab governments and come to power, and they couldn't get the mobs out in the
streets so they never won in any Arab country. Deadlock, stalemate, let's break it, sucker the
Americans into invading. The point is, it's a standard terrorist tactic. It's not Osama bin Laden
being original. It's in the manual, you know, page 42. So, yeah, I do believe that, and he's had
limited success in the sense that Americans are now deeply mired in occupying Muslim countries but
even now Arabs aren't fools, most of them aren't going to go out and die in the street to bring him
to power.

KERRY O'BRIEN: You're critical of the expression "war on terror". Why?

GWYNNE DYER: Because it's a simile - it's actually modelled directly on war on crime. The thing
about wars on crime is (a) we don't use armoured brigades and (b) we don't expect them to end with
all the criminals coming out with their hands up and then there's no more crime. It's a statistical
operation to get the crime rate down. Wars on terror also should not be fought by armies because
terrorists are not an army, they're civilians. There was one exception in Afghanistan where they
had a government behind them so you had to deal with that, but apart from that they live in houses
and apartment buildings among other civilians. What on earth is the use of tanks in combating this?
It requires police force, intelligence gathering, security measures, rather like a war on crime
does, but it's not a war. It's only a metaphor.

KERRY O'BRIEN: You've said, thankfully with an optimistic note, we've come to a point now where you
regard the glass as more than half full.

GWYNNE DYER: Yes.

KERRY O'BRIEN: But when you stack up all the statistics you talk about in the book - the growth of
the population, the increased strain on the planet between countries for resources, nuclear weapons
- how confident do you feel for your children and your children's children?

GWYNNE DYER: Well, I wouldn't bet the house that we're gonna get through the next generation or so
with no cataclysm. But, you know, we are going into a crunch. We all know we're going into a
crunch. I think the major issues will be the political fallout of environmental crises, but they're
coming and you don't know what order they're coming in. We're gonna have to get through that. We're
much likelier to get through without a calamity if we have the multilateral system. I can't call
the odds on this. I know if we don't have the multilateral system, you might as well cut your
throat now because if we go into that with the old kind of confrontational alliance-based system at
some point we fall off the ladder and everything goes. It's not the end of problems. It's certainly
not the end of history. But a world that is largely democratic with a functioning multilateral
system and a commitment to collaboration, not confrontation, has a reasonable chance of getting
through the next 50 years without losing large chunks of humanity. Which is probably what's at
stake.

KERRY O'BRIEN: Gwynne Dyer, thanks very much for talking with us.

GWYNNE DYER: Thank you very much, Kerry.

Holocaust survivors relive painful memories

Holocaust survivors relive painful memories

Reporter: Geoff Hutchison

KERRY O'BRIEN: Still on war. For those who lived through the nightmare of Hitler's death camps,
this year's 60th anniversary of the end of World War II in Europe has rekindled painful memories.
We're familiar with the wild celebrations that marked VE Day, but what did liberation really mean
for those freed when the concentration camp gates were flung open? What awaited those wanting to
return to their old homes and how did they go about rebuilding their lives? In Melbourne, home to
8,000 holocaust survivors, those questions are being asked in an exhibition, Bittersweet Freedom.
Geoff Hutchison reports.

NEWSREEL: A wave of horror swept across the civilised world when the armies of liberation reached
the gates of Belsen, Auschwitz, Dachau.

GEOFF HUTCHISON: On January 27, 1945, the Soviet army liberated survivors at the Nazi death camp,
Auschwitz, in Poland.

NEWSREEL: And as they advanced, they tore aside veils that had shielded the worst of Hitler's
infamies from outside eyes.

STEPHANIE HELLER: Our feeling was, they kind, a kind of happiness that we can go out and see the
grass, see the flowers, see the houses and blue sky, and we were very joyful.

GEOFF HUTCHISON: But for Stephanie Heller, a survivor of Auschwitz, the reality of liberation was
very different when she learnt there was no family to go home to.

STEPHANIE HELLER: My husband, my little sister and my parents didn't come back. I'm the only one
with my twin sister who survived. When we realised that we are alone, the joy of being liberated
wasn't fulfilled really. We knew that there is still the shadow of the past over us.

GEOFF HUTCHISON: On the 60th anniversary of the end of the war in Europe, this has been a year of
commemoration and reflection. Be it world leaders lighting candles at Auschwitz, be it holocaust
survivors thousands of kilometres away in Melbourne. But what did liberation really represent?
Defence Force Chief General Peter Cosgrove has just opened an exhibition which seeks to explore a
bitter sweet freedom.

GENERAL PETER COSGROVE, AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE FORCE CHIEF: It's our duty to ensure that their awful
stories of loss and agony and their incredible stories of courage and hope and survival continue to
be commemorated and honoured. This is a lasting debt that we owe to those that suffered and
sacrificed.

ABRAM GOLDBERG: It bought freedom in a physical sense, but otherwise, I didn't have any illusion
that freedom meant, for me, to end the whole night with my family. I knew my family was completely
annihilated, destroyed.

GEOFF HUTCHISON: For Maria Lewitt, liberation by Soviet troops in Poland enabled her to emerge from
two years of hiding. But freedom would not guarantee safety from old hatreds.

MARIA LEWITT: The first group of Polish people we met, I said something like this: "Have a look,
half an hour ago, rations came and here you have our Jew boys back again." I don't have to tell you
how much it hurt that all of a sudden this euphoria, we are free, and bang, you know.

SCHOOL BOY (AT EXHIBITION): Do you hate the Germans?

ABRAM GOLDBERG: No, no, just the opposite. We don't hate. In this museum, you will never hear us
utter a word of hate. Just the opposite. We always speak about tolerance from one human being to
another because I witnessed too much hatred and I knew if I will hate, I will destroy myself as a
human being.

GEOFF HUTCHISON: Eighty-year-old Abie Goldberg spends much of his week as a tour guide at the
Holocaust Museum, retelling a survivor's story that for these year eight students seems both
nightmarish and compelling. Sixty years on, Abie Goldberg says he will never be truly liberated
from his sense of loss and betrayal, but Australia gave him the chance to rebuild his life and to
bear witness as a living exhibit.

ABRAM GOLDBERG: And when we were given the occasion to emigrate to Australia, we grabbed it with
both hand, and because we knew Australia is far away from Europe, and it's a free country, a
democratic country where I will not have to look over my shoulder.

GEOFF HUTCHISON: Stephanie Heller was a Mengler twin, with her sister part of Dr Joseph Mengler's
grotesque medical experimentation at Auschwitz.

STEPHANIE HELLER (TALKING TO STUDENTS AT EXHIBITION): So, we had to take the corpses and heap them
on a truck.

GEOFF HUTCHISON: For many years, she could not speak about her ordeal, but now she too tells her
story to a new generation.

STEPHANIE HELLER: I always tell the students, you have to remember tolerance is the best, and
religion, there is the best religion, there are many religions, but the best religion is to be a
good human being.

GEOFF HUTCHISON: For those who survived the Holocaust memories of liberation are indeed bitter
sweet and anniversaries like this create a special ache. At this Melbourne cemetery, a new monument
containing ashes from Auschwitz has just been dedicated, to remember the unknown dead and to give
mourners a focus for their prayers. Proof perhaps that while the passage of time may not always
heal, it can soothe.

MARIA LEWITT: I am glad that I don't hate. I am glad that my children don't hate. That I were
brought up in the house when hate was an unknown word.

ABRAM GOLDBERG: Here is my victory because in my case, as a third generation, and since I call it
my victory.

KERRY O'BRIEN: Memories like that just don't die. Geoff Hutchison with that report.

Memories like that just don't die. That's the program for tonight. We'll be back at the same time
tomorrow, but for now, goodnight. Captions by Captioning and Subtitling International.