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.
Order In The House -

View in ParlView

(generated from captions) Woo-hoo! (SCREAMS) What about Major Kong?

I would not rule out the chance Mr President,

of human specimens. to preserve a nucleus It will be quite easy... (LAUGHS) our deeper mine shafts. ..at the bottom of some of a mine some thousands of feet deep Radioactivity would never penetrate improvement in dwelling space and in a matter of weeks sufficient could easily be provided. to stay there? How long would you have

Well, let's see now... Cobalt-thorium-G. Uh... Radioactive half-life...

possibly 100 years. I would think that stay down there for 100 years? You mean, people could actually Mein Fuhrer. It will not the difficult, I'm sorry, Mr President. Nuclear reactors could... almost indefinitely. Nuclear reactors could provide power plant life. Greenhouses could maintain and slaughtered. Animals could be bred of all mine sites in the country. A quick survey would have to be made space for several hundred thousand But I would guess that dwelling of our people could be provided. to have to decide Well, I would hate who stays up and who goes down. Mr President. That would not be necessary, with a computer It could easily be accomplished and programmed to accept youth, and a computer could be set intelligence health, sexual fertility, of necessary skills. and a cross-section it would be absolutely vital Of course, and military men that our top government and impart the required principles be included to foster of leadership and tradition. Mein... they would breed prodigiously. Naturally, and little to do. There would be much time breeding techniques But with the proper to each male, and a ratio of 10 females we work our way to back I would guess that product within 20 years. to the present gross national wouldn't these nuclear survivors Doctor, that they... be so grief-stricken and anguished and not want to go on living? Well, envy the dead Oh... excuse me. every one would still be alive. When they go down into the mine and the prevailing emotion There will be no shocking memories for those left behind, will be one of nostalgia curiosity for the adventure ahead. combined with a spirit of bold Mein... Doctor, of 10 women to each man. you mentioned the ratio abandonment of the so-called Wouldn't that necessitate the monogamous sexual relationship? I mean, as far as men were concerned?

Regrettably, yes. for the future of the human race. But it is a sacrifice required that since each man will be required I hasten to add, along these lines, to do prodigious service for their sexual characteristics the women will have to be selected a highly stimulating nature. which will have to be of an astonishingly good idea, Doctor. I must confess, you have Thank you, sir. from a military point of view. I think we ought to look at this some big bomb and we didn't, Supposing the Ruskies stashed away they could take over. when they come out, they might even try a sneak attack I agree, Mr President, our mine shaft space. so they could take that these new developments It would be naive of us to think expansionist policy. will change Soviet increasingly on the alert I mean, we must be mine shaft space to prevent them taking in order to breed more prodigiously, when we emerge. thus knocking us out in numbers a mine shaft gap! Mr President, we must not allow Sir, I have a plan. Mein Fuhrer, I can walk! VERA LYNN: # We'll meet again # Don't know where # Don't know when # But I know we'll meet again # Some sunny day # Keep smiling through # Just like you always do # Till the blue skies # Drive the dark clouds far away # So will you please say hello # To the folks that I know # Tell them I won't be long # They'll be happy to know # That as you saw me go # I was singing this song # We'll meet again # Don't know where # Don't know when # But I know we'll meet again # Some sunny day. #

THEME MUSIC 'Welcome to Order In The House, in Federal Parliament.' a review of the week to save the Australian people We are trying great big new tax - from the Prime Minister's and a tax that won't work. a tax that we don't need, The leader of the Opposition on the Emissions Trading Scheme has changed his position than he's changed his undies. probably more often descending upon Australia We'll have delegations from all around the world for climate change from Dr Abbot. to see the magical miracle cure it smacks of cover-up. You know, this smacks of obfuscation, Are there any questions? Questions without notice. The Leader of the Opposition. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

challenged the Prime Minister Well, Mr Speaker, when I first to a public debate on climate change, he refused. the Coalition had no policy. He refused, saying (LAUGHTER) Well, Mr Policy... Mr Speaker... SPEAKER: Order. First time nerves, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, we have a policy and clearer than the Government's. which is simpler, cheaper I renew my question. And I renew my question. Does the Prime Minister have the guts about climate change? to have a nationally televised debate versus his great big tax. My direct action MEMBERS: Hear, hear. SPEAKER: Order. Thank you. The Prime Minister. (LAUGHTER) Uh... Thank you, Mr Speaker, from Mr Policy. for that question without notice

And it's about policy. And could I say to those opposite, are broadcast daily. the proceedings of this parliament And we are here all week. We are here all next week. We are here for five weeks in the current sitting. And if the honourable gentleman wishes to engage in a debate on the future of climate change, I welcome that debate. I refer the Prime Minister to a briefing provided by the Government to the 'Daily Telegraph' last November which indicated that the Government's Emissions Trading Scheme will increase Australian family's bills by $1,100 a year. $1,100 a year. A great big tax on Australian families. I ask the Prime Minister, will be confirm this figure? And I ask the Prime Minister, release, in full, the Government's modelling of the impact of his great big new tax on Australian families. MEMBERS: Hear, hear. SPEAKER: The Prime Minister. Mr Speaker, I notice

that in response to the Leader of the Opposition's question about $1,000, that after he was challenged on that figure by myself and other spokesmen of the Government in recent times, he suddenly went silent. (MEMBERS INTERJECT) And the reason is, he went silent... SPEAKER: Order. ..because the figure is without foundation. Order! Mr Speaker, the honourable member would be familiar with the fact that the impact on the average family is $624 per year, $12 per week. Mr Speaker, the honourable member knows that. What he did in order to support his fear campaign in the community

was simply double it up. Mr Speaker, what we need is a bit of transparency, a bit of honesty in this debate. And it would start in terms of the actual impact of climate change policies - this Government's and the Opposition's - on working families. Mr Speaker, the Government has put forward, through the Treasury modelling, the impact of its Emissions Trading Scheme.

The Opposition Leader today said, "Here is a policy. I think this is how much it costs. "But don't ask me how I'm gonna fund it." Well, the answer to that, Mr Speaker, is that if you're going to have an unfunded policy, it flows through to taxpayers paying the price for an Opposition's policy which is not properly costed and not properly funded. SPEAKER: The leader of the Nationals. Thank you, Mr Speaker. And my question is to the Prime Minister. And I refer the Prime Minister again to his great big new tax. Is the Prime Minister aware that the annual cost increase from his proposed Emissions Trading Scheme for the average dairy farmer will be between $6,000 and $9,000? Can he tell the House what impact this will make on the price of milk and other dairy products at the supermarket checkout? Mr Speaker, the question goes to the cost of living impact of the carbon pollution reduction scheme. The impact on the CPI is 1.1%,

as indicated in the modelling which was released by the Treasury. The leader of the National Party asked a question about the impact on bread and milk. Within that price, milk goes up by 0.8%, bread goes up by 0.7% and meat by 0.7%.

Mr Speaker, we've been up-front about the impact on prices. I would suggest that the Leader of the Opposition - as he built up in the announcement of his alternative proposal today - would indicate what the cost flow-through of his proposal is. I move that this House calls on the Prime Minister to be up-front with the Australian people and small business about the impact of his great big new tax by, one, accepting the challenge of the Leader of the Opposition to debate the so-called "greatest moral challenge of our times",

namely, the impact of climate change, and the benefits of the Opposition's policy of direct action on climate change

rather than the Government's great big new tax on everything as envisaged by its Emissions Trading Scheme. And two, that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition be allocated 30 minutes each, a total of one hour, to have that debate immediately in the House of Representatives.

This is the motion that I move. And, Mr Speaker, I am grateful for the Government giving leave to so move. Mr Speaker, if this really is the greatest moral challenge of our time, why won't the Prime Minister stand on his feet in this House and not tomorrow, not next week, but now, and defend his policy for 30 minutes? MAN: Hear, hear. Mr Speaker, let there be no mistake about exactly what this Government wants to do. What this Government wants to do is to impose on the Australian people the greatest single policy-induced change in Australia's history. It's the biggest change in Australian history because it raises the cost of energy, it raises the cost of power, it raises the cost of transport. And because it does all those things, it raises the cost of life. Because you cannot have modern life, you cannot have the way of life that Australians have become used to without energy, without power, without transport. And the Australian public don't deserve this massive whack on their cost of living

without the fullest possible explanation from this Prime Minister. And the reason why he is so reluctant to give us that explanation is because he knows that no-one will be convinced by it once it has been offered. We all...we all saw the Prime Minister floundering in this parliament a few moments ago when he was asked to explain the impact of his great big new tax on the price of milk. He just can't do it. We all saw the Prime Minster floundering on the 'Today' program this morning when he was asked the impact of his great big new tax on the price of bread. A Prime Minister who doesn't know the price of milk, who doesn't know the price of bread and who can't explain the impact of his policies

on the price of milk and the price of bread, is no fit person to be the Prime Minster of this country. MEMBERS: Hear, hear. And, Mr Speaker, a policy which this Government wants to foist on the Australian people before they have, to them, explained the impact on the necessities of life,

is not a policy that we should have to accept. Now, Mr Speaker, I think the Australian people are sick of being treated like mugs by the Rudd Government. The Australian people are good people, are idealistic people, people who want to do the right thing by the environment, but you can't ask them to accept a policy that they don't understand and which the proponents of that policy can't explain. Now, Mr Speaker, let me, for the benefit of the Prime Minster, explain the essence of our policy. It's a very good policy. And, you know, it's a policy that doesn't require legislation to get through the parliament. It's a policy that the Prime Minister could introduce tomorrow if he wanted to. And it's a policy... it's a policy...it's a policy, which means we actually have a policy now, unlike the Prime Minister, whose policy is dependent upon legislation getting through the parliament, which he cannot guarantee. Mr Speaker... (MEMBERS INTERJECT) Mr Speaker, I, I, I... SPEAKER: Order. I appreciate that the Minister for Finance has made great strides but I really think if he calmed down, we would have a better debate in this country. Mr Speaker... Mr Speaker... Mr Speaker, our policy will deliver the same emissions reductions as the Government without the Government's great big new tax. Our policy is cheaper, it's simpler and it's more effective than the Government's because it relies on incentives, not penalties. That is the essential difference between our policy and that of the Government's. Our policy relies on incentives, not penalties. And at the heart of our policy is an emissions reduction fund that will do precisely, will do precisely what is said to be necessary, namely, it will purchase, at the lowest cost, the most efficient and effective ways of reducing emissions. That is exactly what it is said we need. And that is exactly what our policy will deliver. Now, Mr Speaker, Mr Speaker, there are many...there are many ways to reduce emissions. We can improve the carbon content of our soil. And in so doing, improve the productivity of our farmers. There are many farmers who are already doing this and I think those farmers deserve an incentive, not a penalty.

Those farmers deserve a fair go, not a great big new tax.

And to the extent that they could increase the carbon content of our soil, they will be helped, or they can be helped, under our policy.

Then of course, Mr Speaker, under our policy, we can help fund the innovative technology for which Australians are famous. You know, in my first week in my new position, I visited MDB Technology in Townsville. They are using carbon dioxide and waste water from power stations and sunlight to produce algae, which can become biofuel and stock feed. You know, I had the decency to visit that great innovative Australian company. The Prime Minister was 100m down the road

and he wouldn't take 10 minutes out of his time, out of his schedule, to visit this groundbreaking Australian company. Well, Mr Speaker, I have more respect for the Australian people than to walk away from an example of world-beating Australian technology and I call on the Prime Minister to put in place a policy, as we have done, that will actually fund, directly fund, emissions reduction by paying Australian businesses to do what they do best - to farm more effectively, to innovate more creatively, to grow more trees, to do exactly what is needed to improve our environment.

Now, I am a great supporter, Mr Speaker, of the market.

What we in the Coalition are doing is going to the market and saying to all the creative people out there, "You give us your best ideas "for reducing emissions at the lowest cost in the most effective ways. "We will fund them." I tell you what we won't do, though. We won't fund a bunch of speculators.

We won't fund a bunch of speculators to rip off the Australian public

through a giant emissions trading scam. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! When we listen to what was put forward today, it was a pretty interesting presentation indeed. Mr Speaker, the leader of the Opposition has himself described... climate change as "absolutely crap". That's his words, not mine. Mr Speaker, he said that climate change is absolute crap and has confirmed that view today in that the proposal he has put forward is nothing more than a climate con job. This is a climate con job - absolute and final. Mr Speaker, it does less, it costs more,

and by definition, it will mean higher taxes. Let us go through these in order. MEMBERS INTERJECT Those opposite seem to guffaw about cost. If you go to the budget papers which we have produced, you'll find the impact on budget of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is something like $3.3 billion across the decade. Those opposite, in their own costings, which have yet to be tested,

admit to a budget impact of $10 billion ? three times that which has been advanced by the government ? and they say over there that this is, therefore, proof positive that their proposal costs less than ours. Let us go to the entrails of the climate change con, Mr Speaker, the climate con job put forward by the Leader of the Opposition today. Three big problems with it. The first is that it doesn't work and the reason it doesn't work, as the member for Sturt knows by his embarrassed interjection, is that he puts no cap on carbon - he puts no cap on carbon pollution.

On the one hand you say you're going to reduce carbon pollution but on the other hand you're saying, "I'm putting forward a plan which doesn't actually put a cap on how much carbon pollution you allow out into the atmosphere," ? failure No. 1. Failure No.2, Mr Speaker, is this - what he does through this plan is leave the big polluters alone and slug taxpayers instead. He leaves the big polluters alone and he slugs the taxpayers instead. Not only does it cost more than the government's scheme,

he leaves the big polluters to one side and says, "You're okay, don't worry about that," and then goes on to say, "You taxpayers who'll be copping extra taxation as a result of this and possibly extra prices as well, we will work that through." Those individual taxpayers and consumers will not get one dollar of compensation. Problem No.2. In other words, let the big polluters go free and slug Australian working families as taxpayers. That is the second problem of this. The third problem with this plan, this proposal, this climate con job, is this - it is totally unfunded. We have been waiting for this alternative plan for how long? Therefore, they cost it at $10 billion but cannot even summon the collective honesty to put forward how they would offset that in their own budget numberings. Mr Speaker, this is the absolute core set of problems

with what those opposite have advanced in terms of their alternative climate change plan. It does not work, it puts no cap on carbon, it lets all the big polluters go absolutely free, it slugs taxpayers and working families as a result and it does not even bother to attempt to fund the policy. That is the core of what has been put forward today. Mr Speaker, can I just say this? It all comes off the back of a Leader of the Opposition

who does not believe any of this in the first place.

Because if you go out there and publicly say that climate change is absolute crap, what do you think people conclude when you put out a piece of paper that you are actually serious about it? That is why people don't trust the Leader of the Opposition on climate change

because he does not believe that it is actually happening. If you look at the evolution of his positions on this, he supported an emissions trading scheme when he was a member of the Howard government.

He said then that climate change was absolute crap. He said that the Liberals should support the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme unamended. He then said they should support amended. He then said he totally opposed the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. On top of all that, Mr Speaker, as he said to the former Leader of the Opposition, "Don't worry about me, Malcolm,

I'm just a political weathervane when it comes to climate change."

"I'm just a political weathervane Mr Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has changed his position on the emissions trading scheme probably more often than he has changed his undies because, can I just say, it has gone on and on and on. One day after another, one day after another, we have a different position. Can I just say to the Leader of the Opposition - if you are going to come up with a policy, fund it, cost it, make it environmentally credible against these three most basic tests - fail, fail and fail. 'With its climate change policy barely a day old, the Opposition felt the full force of a government assault.' The policy they announced, Mr Speaker, was straight out of the John Howard songbook. Pretend you're doing something, splash a lot of taxpayers' money around, set up a big pork barrel slush fund for the National Party,

and make sure you don't upset anybody by declaring business as usual. There are a couple of critical questions about this.

The Member for Bowman. How is it that half the Liberal Party who think that climate change is either a scientific fraud or a communist conspiracy are prepared to support spending $3.2 billion to address it?

And how is it that the other half of the Liberal Party, that voted for the government's emissions trading legislation to be supported, now say that it shouldn't be supported? But the most significant question about this commitment, Mr Speaker, is how is it, how is it that the nations of the world

gathered in Copenhagen only weeks ago to consider how to deal with climate change, and they were unable to come up with this brilliant solution that somehow the Leader of the Opposition has stumbled upon? They didn't realise that, somehow, if you commit to spending a quarter of a percentage point of the government's budget over a few years that'll fix climate change! Dr Abbott's miracle cure for climate change. There it is in a little bottle! It is just a little bit of dirt, a few trees, a few solar panels,

mix them all in together and you have got Dr Abbott's miracle cure for climate change. Can we perhaps expect that we'll have delegations descending upon Australia from all around the world to see the magical miracle cure for climate change from Dr Abbott? Well, Mr Speaker, Mr Speaker, both the Leader of the Opposition and I are probably waiting for his hair restorer product to come out, and there will be a few other customers

around the House today as well, Mr Speaker. Last night, last night, Mr Speaker... Order! My new, my fourth opposition number, Senator Barnaby Goose or whatever his name is, let the cat out of the bag about where the money is coming from. Order! Would the minister resume his seat? But I'll allow the Manager of Opposition Business to put in his point of order. The standing orders specifically require that members refer to people in this place and in the Senate by their proper title and not degrade members of the other place. I would ask him to withdraw that stupid remark. MEMBERS INTERJECT Um, I will get... Order! Order! The member for Sturt... should not extend his case in the way he does sometimes, because I sometimes change my mind when I have some sympathy. Even though I think the aspect about protecting the fragile petals over in the other place, I think it would assist... Order! Order! JOE HOCKEY: I was always polite about Barney Cooney. The member for North Sydney is correct. He was on of the greatest urgers for Senator Cooney, whom I think we should be sending our best wishes to. It would assist the House if the Minister for Finance withdrew. MEMBERS MURMUR

I will withdraw, Mr Speaker. I will refer to him henceforth as my fourth shadow finance minister. Mr Speaker, last night on Lateline, Senator Joyce was asked... Order! ..was asked how the coalition was going to pay for the spending... Order. ..that it just committed itself to with respect to climate change. His answer was to say that he couldn't say, you had to wait until the Henry report on taxation emerged.

That can only mean one thing, Mr Speaker, because by the time the election arrives, the government's decisions with respect to the Henry report taxation decisions, will be in the bottom line. Whether they impact this year, next year or the following year, they will be in the bottom line. So any changes that Senator Joyce proposes to make with respect to taxation will be above and beyond that. Order! The Member for North Sydney! Were such changes to reduce taxation, that would not be able to pay for the $3.2 billion, would it? In other words, there is only one logical outcome from Senator Joyce's statement and that is that the answer is the Opposition, if it is elected to government, is going to increase taxes in order to pay for its climate change policy. And further on AM this morning, on radio, when Senator Joyce was asked a similar question, "Can he guarantee there won't be any tax increases?" he responded, "That's a very hard question to answer," and then said, "Wait for the Henry report." The truth is, Mr Speaker, that the Opposition's climate change policy is simply a giant con job. Mr Speaker, my question is towards the Prime Minister. I refer to Prime Minister to his answer in the house yesterday, and again today, when the Prime Minister said that Treasury's documentation projected, and I quote, "electricity prices would rise by 7% in 2011, 2012". I refer the Prime Minister to the Government's 820-page easy-to-use, consumer-friendly carbon-emitting guide to the real cost, the real cost of the Government's ETS.

I refer him specifically to page 17 (3), which says, and I quote, "Electricity prices are estimated to increase by around 18%." MEMBERS GROAN Prime Minister, which of these figures should Australian families believe ? 7% or 18%? MEMBERS: Hear, hear! The Prime Minister. Mr Speaker, can I say, in response to the honourable member's question, that the advice which the government has received from the Treasury is as follows. Firstly, in relation to electricity prices - I am directly answering the question which has been asked ? that in 2011-12, electricity prices would go up by 7% and that in 2012-13, they would go up by 12%. That actually goes to the sequencing of the introduction of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, with a fixed price in the first year and a floating price in the second. That is the answer to the honourable member's question. MEMBERS INTERJECT Order. The Member of North Sydney on a point of order. Point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask the Prime Minister to release that information and to disclose the information on the paper from which- The Member for North Sydney will resume his seat. The Member for North Sydney ...will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order. Yes, Mr Speaker, I ask the Prime Minister to table the document from which he was quoting. Was the Prime Minister quoting from a document? Consistent with my predecessor's practice usually, I am, and I therefore decline to table it. I take it that the Prime Minister is indicating that it is confidential. The Member for Flynn.

Order! The Member for Flynn has-

Order! The Member for Flynn... MEMBERS MURMUR The Member for Flynn will resume his seat.

The Manager of Opposition Business on a further point of order. Yes, Mr Speaker, on the Leader of the Opposition's request, the past practise has been for the Speaker to ensure that the document is marked "confidential". If it is not marked "confidential", the practise for it is to be tabled. No, the Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. Order. It is not the role of the Speaker to decide whether things have been marked confidential or not. The question is asked of the Member or Minister concerned and, as I said, I took it from the response from the Prime Minister that the document was confidential. And last year, electricity up 15.7%, water and sewerage up 14.1%, gas up 9%, and in the case of families, we found there were parts of education up 7.5% particularly pre-school and primary education. Now the fundamental point that people need to know here is that it was the discretionary items such as audiovisual components, TVs, plasmas and so on, which fell, they fell 12.4%, or overseas holidays, because of the very strong Australian dollar, fell 4.4%. So what we found was that while the headline inflation rate which the Treasurer chose to focus on, was a little over 2%, the real impact on Australian households was far, far greater because the things that go into the everyday mix of the household budget rose enormously, none greater than electricity last year by nearly 16%. These are essential items for Australian families.

And, of course, Madam Deputy Speaker, we had in Question Time, the Prime Minister confused and befuddled about what the real impact is on electricity prices of his own ETS. Now, for reasons that everyone is very familiar with, the Prime Minister has not been under pressure for the last 12 months, on the detailed items in his Emissions Trading Scheme. And I would say to the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister here, I would say to them, times have changed. And times have changed so much that now the Treasurer and Prime Minister need to be honest with the Australian people about the everyday costs of the Emissions Trading Scheme. But more than that, more than that, they can't simply refer to an 820 page document and claim that that is the authoritative text that everyday Australians should access to find out the impact of the Emissions Trading Scheme and think they can get away with it. An 820 page document, which even, under the Parliamentary computer network, with all of its failings, takes a hell of a long time to print, and most Australian families wouldn't have 820 pages in their printer. But this is a user-friendly document from your friendly Rudd Government. You will find out via this 820 page document

exactly what the impact is of Kevin Rudd's ETS. The sad thing is that that document refers to an 18% increase in electricity prices. Ooops. The Prime Minister talked about a Treasury document citing a 7% increase in electricity prices. I would say to the Prime Minister,

that document might be floating about somewhere in that ocean of paper that comes out of the Public Service on a daily basis, somewhere there might be that document,

somewhere, it might actually say that electricity prices are going up 7%, but where? We challenged the Prime Minister to release the document, and he refused, he said it was secret and confidential. If it was so freely available to the Australian people, why is it confidential here in the people's house?

If it is so freely available, and Australians are so aware of the impact of the Labor Party's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme on electricity prices, why don't Australians have ready access to that information?

You know, this smacks of obfuscation, it smacks of cover up, it smacks of attempts not to tell the truth about the real impact on people's lives of the Emissions Trading Scheme. By Thursday, the Government was claiming that the Opposition plan would, in fact, increase carbon emissions, not reduce them. Questions, are there any questions? The Leader of the Opposition. Thanks, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister, and I refer the Prime Minister to overnight news reports that President Obama is likely to drop his Emissions Trading Scheme in the United States. Given this important development, I ask the Prime Minister why he still wants to foist upon Australia a costly, complex and almost incomprehensible scheme? In the United States, President Obama confronts an institution which is well known to this place as well, it's called the Senate. And the Senate in the United States, Mr Speaker, the Senate in the United States is not necessarily going to be accommodating of his aspirations to introduce an Emissions Trading Scheme. On the question of global action, Mr Speaker, in relation to emissions trading, I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to answer this, why is it that 30 advanced economies around the world have made the same decision as John Howard, Peter Costello, Malcolm Turnbull and, until six weeks ago, all of those represented opposite. Mr Speaker, the reason for this change is because those opposite have chosen instead

a path which is all about the politics of complaint

not the policy of solution. We had some interesting developments overnight in the assessment made of the environmental effectiveness of the plan put forward by the Leader of the Opposition the other day. Because the net result of the plan put forward by the Leader of the Opposition is not to decrease Australia's carbon pollution, but to increase it by 13%. Mr Speaker, those opposite, through any independent and external analysis of what they've put forward would know, it does not come within a bull's roar of the 138 megatonnes necessary to bring in a 5% reduction in Australia's overall emissions target. In fact, the conclusion by the Department of Climate Change, looking at it generously is that it would generate 40 million tonnes. If they are to meet their target, if they are to meet the target they've identified, in fact, according to Department of Climate Change calculations, they would have to spend almost three times the amount of money that they are projecting, they would have to spend approximately $27 billion

over than ten year period, not the $10 billion that they concede. So there is a giant $27 billion hole in their budget calculations, Mr Speaker, on top of the $9.5 billion that they're already blocking in the budget savings that the Government's put forward. It's no wonder that the Shadow Treasurer, the Member for North Sydney, suggested that the Leader of the Oppositions approach to climate change might cost as much as $50 billion and it's no wonder that it was repudiated

by the former Leader of the Opposition. Now it's interesting, Mr Speaker, that these days, the primary advocate for the Opposition on economic policy issues appears not to be the Shadow Treasurer, it seems to be the Shadow Finance Minister, Senator Barnaby Joyce. And he's had a lot of interesting things to say, Mr Speaker. It's not easy, I know from long personal experience, it's not easy to get a front page headline, to be the lead story on the front page of a major newspaper when you're Shadow Finance Minister. Well, Senator Joyce has managed that several times, Mr Speaker. Order. The Minister for Finance and Deregulation will resume his seat. The Member for North Sydney on a point of order. It's a point of order relating to relevance, Mr Speaker, and I would ask you to bring him back to the question. Order. The Member for North Sydney will resume his seat. The Minister will relate the material that he's using to the question, having allowed the question to stand, he should relate his answer to the question. Mr Speaker, I was referring to a headline on the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald today which says "A day of gaffs, goofs and gibberish." And in one speech. Order. Order. I simply say to the Manager of Opposition Business I will listen closely to the remarks the Minister is making,

having indicated that he should relate his remarks to the question. I will do that, Mr Speaker. I was asked with respect to the importance of accuracy on statements and commitments regarding public finances. In the one speech, yesterday, the new Shadow Finance Minister managed to confuse millions with billions, when describing the size of the budget, several times, he managed to claim that the $6 billion that was left in the Higher Education Endowment Fund by the former Government was all gone, when, in fact, the successor fund established by the Government with those funds has in its accounts as at 31 December last year, you guessed it, $6 billion. He claimed that debt would peak at $315 billion when, in fact, projected net debt peak is $153 billion, he claimed that current Government debt was $120 billion, when the most recent announced level of November was $11 billion net debt. He claimed that the Australian public service growth was out of control under Labor, when, in fact, in the two years of this Government being in office, it has increased by 2.1%, most of that Defence personnel,

and in the last two years of the Howard Government, it increased by 9.3%, Mr Speaker. But of course, Mr Speaker, the most incredible statements, and the one that really did impact on public confidence were his suggestion that the United States and Australian state governments might default on their debts,

that it was a possibility of, quote, "economic Armageddon," and that, quote, "our capacity to feed ourselves, the capacity to provide the fundamental medicines and basic fundamental requirements for our nation" were somehow in doubt. He strapped in the sandwich board and is marching up and down saying "The end of the world is nigh," Mr Speaker. Now, this isn't the Shadow Finance Minister, it's a freak show, and he has taken charge, Mr Speaker, it's the bearded lady of Australian politics, he's taken charge of Opposition economic policy. Order. The Minister will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order. Mr Speaker, I would ask the minister to withdraw the remark about the offensive words about the Shadow Minister for Finance contained in the last few statements he made. They are quite clearly offensive. Order. The member...the minister will withdraw and the minister will draw his answer to a conclusion. Minister. Mr Speaker, I withdraw. The sad thing for this country, Mr Speaker, is that now virtually everything we hear from the Opposition

with respect to public finances, with respect to economic policy, with respect to debt, with respect to budget,

with respect to how the promises are going to be paid for by the Opposition are coming from Senator Barnaby Joyce. And if he ever gets control of the public finances of this nation, God help Australia! The Leader of the Opposition. Mr Speaker, my question is again to the Prime Minister and I refer the Prime Minister to the Independent Pricing Tribunal report,

the climate change mitigation report and his own Treasury documentation,

all of which indicate large increases in electricity prices as a result of his emissions trading scheme. So, I ask the Prime Minister - what is the increase? Is it the 7% that he told this House on Tuesday? Is it the 18% that he admitted yesterday? Is it the 20% which IPART claims? Is it the 255 which Frontier Economics claims? But whatever it is, Mr Speaker, whatever it is, Mr Speaker, his great big new tax is a massive slug on Australian families and I call on the Prime Minister to explain himself. INTERJECTIONS Order, order! The Prime Minister. Thank you, Mr Speaker, And I welcome the debate on alternative policies on climate change. In the lengthy question asked by the Leader of the Opposition, he referred to a well-known consultancy firm called Frontier Economics. Interesting to see what Frontier had to say about the scheme put forward by those opposite, because when asked again about this on radio yesterday, Danny Price well known of Frontier Economics said this, "So, I am in favour, ultimately, of a trading scheme." That's what Frontier Economics said. The Leader of the Opposition had said yesterday, the day before or the day before that that Frontier Economics were full backers of his approach. Well, it strikes me as passing strange that the full backers of his approach say that the only way to deal with these challenges in the long term is through a market-based system. Mr Speaker, I say to the Leader of the Opposition - if you are going to invoke an authority like Frontier Economics to justify your position, you get onto the telephone and you ask them, "Guys, are you going to back me up?" Because on this occasion, they walked away from it at a million miles an hour. The second part of the question, Mr Speaker, which the honourable Leader of the Opposition asked was about electricity prices. I repeat what I said to him yesterday - that price rises would be 7% cent in 2011-12 and 12% in 2012-13.

And, Mr Speaker, Mr Speaker... INTERJECTIONS ..yesterday, led by the Shadow Treasurer, the shadow Treasurer said that there was something remarkably new in this. I draw his attention to a statement which was released by the Minister for Climate Change in November of last year following the negotiations with your side of politics when we agreed on the approach to this. And that contained within it precisely the final position vis-a-vis the impact on electricity and gas prices.

The reason the prices were put in those terms and at that amount, because that was the deal we struck with you. Order. The Leader of the Opposition. Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table the transcript from which the Prime Minister was quoting, in which Mr Danny Price says that his scheme is almost the worst way to put a trading scheme together.

Order. Is leave granted? Leave not granted. The Member for Brisbane. INTERJECTIONS Leave was not granted. The member for North Sydney. Thank you very much. My question is again to the Prime Minister.

Given that a police officer and their teacher spouse who each earn $65,000 a year are not fully compensated and are financially worse off under the Prime Minister's emissions trading scheme, will the Prime Minister inform the House and those families exactly how much worse off they will be after the introduction of the emissions trading scheme? MEMBERS: Hear, hear! Order. The Prime Minister. Mr Speaker, if I heard the member for North Sydney's question correctly,

he referred to, I think, a double-income family - am I right? Was it with two children? JOE HOCKEY: A double-income family. Oh, a double-income family. Well, Mr Speaker, I would simply draw the... INTERJECTIONS Order! Could I draw the honourable member's attention to the following. That under the household assistance package income levels, medium income levels are defined as - single, $30,000 to $80,000, couples with children, $45,000 to $120,000. Mr Speaker, the medium-income families will have 50% as much as those families who will receive full assistance and, as for... Order. Mr Speaker. And as for other households, they will be receiving some assistance. The second part of the question, Mr Speaker... The second part of my answer to the the question is this - as the Member for North Sydney knows

and the Leader of the Opposition knows... INTERJECTIONS Order. The Prime Minister will resume his seat. MEMBER: The 9.4 million residential electricity accounts,

how does that add up? The member for Dunkley is warned. The Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order.

Mr Speaker, on relevance. He was asked a specific example, and he should be able to give a specific answer on specific families and individuals. will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition has raised a point of order on relevance, the Prime Minister is responding to the question. Prime Minister. The Leader of the Opposition refers to families in Australia. There are 8.8 million families in Australia, 8.1 million of them will receive compensation under the government's proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. The Leader of the Nationals. Thank you, Mr Speaker and my question is also to the Prime Minister about his great big, new tax... MEMBER: Hear, hear.

And his proposal to provide fixed levels of compensation based on average price increases, which do not take into account the higher prices paid by regional families for electricity, water, food, groceries, fuel and other essentials. Why does the compensation envisaged overlook the increased costs faced by regional Australian families,

particularly those who need to rely on higher costs for heating and cooling their homes in places like Darwin and Launceston? MEMBER: Hear, hear. The Prime Minister. Thank you very much and I thank the Leader of the National Party for his question. I go first of all to the preface to his question about big taxes. Can I just remind him that the one he is putting forward is three times more expensive than what the Government has put forward. INTERJECTIONS And furthermore, Mr Speaker... the Opposition's scheme will cost more than $1,000 per household by 2020 on their current numbers, Mr Speaker can I say to those opposite, with not a single... Prime Minister, Prime Minister. The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Member for Sturt will withdraw. I withdraw, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister. Mr Speaker, I also said that the Prime Minister lied so I withdraw as well. And the Member for North Sydney may as well as well. WOMAN: I called him a fibber. I also said that the Prime Minister lied and I withdraw. And the Member for North... INTERJECTIONS No, the member for Dickson will resume his seat. INTERJECTIONS The member for Dickson on a point of order. I too withdraw for calling him a liar, Mr Speaker. LAUGHTER AND INTERJECTIONS Order. I indicate to the House that the Chair's patience is well and truly tested and I think that if they reflect upon general behaviour, it is not what those that observe us would expect and I'd just ask them to try for the last half of today's Question Time. Prime Minister. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order. Yes, yes, Mr Speaker, I think it would assist the House

if the Prime Minister did not persist in asserting untruths.

Now, Mr Speaker... INTERJECTIONS If the Prime Minister persists in asserting untruths...

The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. He has been here long enough to know that, if he has a problem, he can use other forms of the House to address those problems. The Prime Minister is responding to the question.

I was responding the Leader of the National Partys question, the first part of which went to big taxes... and the second part of which... INTERJECTIONS The Prime Minister resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order. Mr Speaker, the Minister for Finance had made an offensive remark and I ask him to withdraw it. Order. I did not hear the remark. But as there had been an indication that remark was made that was offensive, I will seek the cooperation of the minister and ask him to withdraw. I withdraw my suggestion that the leader of the Opposition should take a a swing at someone. Order. The minister knows that he must withdraw without reservation. The minister withdraw without reservation. INTERJECTIONS I withdraw. The Prime Minister has the call. Thank you very much. Mr Speaker, and could I say in response to the Leader of the National Party's question, the first part of it went to the question of big taxes and I simply as a matter of truth assert, that their proposal cost the taxpayer more than $10 billion. That's what they say. Our proposal costs the taxpayer $3.3 billion. Now, Mr Speaker, on the question of compensation, which the Leader of the National Party also referred to, Mr Speaker, can I say to the Leader of the National Party, that the compensation regime which we have put forward has been clear on the public record for a long, long time and it applies to different income categories and it has been the subject of multiple questions in this place. Can I also say in terms of how the scheme is reviewed over time.

Once the scheme commences, household assistance would continue into the future. Secondly, because these assistance payments are indexed to the CPI, assistance will automatically increase in line with increasing carbon prices that affect household costs. Can I also say before the scheme commences and indexation begins the Government is committed to adjusting the initial level of household assistance if the cost of living impacts are higher than expected. Finally, can I say this to the honourable, the Leader of the National Party, the government will also annually review in the budget context the adequacy of assistance to all households, noting that these payments are already automatically increased. An audit of the Government's national Broadband plan revealed that an initial tender process cost taxpayers more than $17 million for no result. The Auditor-general has exposed a complete and utter fiasco in the tender process that was engaged in. Frankly, the whole report by the Auditor-General is an indictment of Minister Conroy. Minister Conroy must take the blame the blame for what occurred. It does expose what was an extraordinary and outrageous

and, frankly, incredibly expensive debacle on the part of Minister Conroy. And this is a debacle that as the report notes, was at a cost to the Government and proponents in excess of $30 million to produce absolutely nothing. The Department's costs alone, the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, were some $17 million in relation to this failed fiasco of a process.

The Auditor-Generals report is full of criticisms of this process from go to whoa, a process for which Minister Conroy was responsible and I quote just one section from page 14 of the summary - a document where the Auditor-General says, in reviewing the process employed and in light of the outcome, there are a number of observations that can be made. Early in the process, most NBN stakeholders considered that a two-stage process to select proponents for the NBN would have improved the prospects of a successful outcome and may have reduced proponents costs, rather than the one-stage process used. Secondly, requesting proponents to outline their preferred regulatory environment for the NBN was unusual

which, of course, in classic Auditor-General's language, is a gross understatement for an RFP process and made a complex commercial transaction considerably more complicated. Thirdly, and most significantly, a non-Telstra proposal was unlikely to build and operate a commercially viable NBN

in circumstances where the proponent was responsible

for the risk of paying compensation to Telstra. That really is the guts of the Auditor-General's report and why this thing was doomed from the outset

and it is why we ended up with the fiasco that we had. The most significant thing about this report -

and it is the thing that we in the Opposition

kept saying throughout this process ? was that it exposes the fundamental flaw in this whole process that only Telstra could implement Labor's election promise to build a fibre-to-the-node network NBN why we kept saying that and the reason why this process was flawed on that basis is because Labor had stolen this policy from Telstra. This was the policy, the proposal, that Telstra brought to our government.

We know it very well, I know it very well. I sat opposite the table from Telstra when they put this proposal to us. All that Labor did was take that Telstra policy,

put a Labor heading on it and present it to the Australian people as their policy. Senator Conroy knew, Senator Lundy knew, I knew, we all knew, that the only company that could ever implement this policy was in fact Telstra, because it was Telstra's proposal to upgrade its network to a fibre-to-the-node network. The whole process of this tender and all the millions that all the other tenderers spent on it, and all the money the department spent on it was always a waste and always a joke. The government should have been quite upfront and quite honest and said, "This is about upgrading the Telstra network. We will enter into a negotiation with Telstra as to how we do that

in the best possible way and in the best interests of the taxpayers," and just got on with it. Instead, we went through this farce, this fiasco, that ended up with the debacle that we are aware of. Far from the picture that Senator Minchin tries to paint of this Audit Office report, the government in fact welcomes the ANAO report into a key election commitment

to deliver a high-speed broadband network to Australians that will lead to significant national economic benefits.

The NBN request for proposals process was designed to maximise flexibility and allow proponents to offer innovative market based solutions.

Many aspects of the RFP process, in fact, mirrored the FTTN competitive process put forward by the previous government in 2007. So I note with interest that it was, in fact, the quote relating to a single-stage or two-stage process that Senator Minchin sought to draw attention to, because we can remember very clearly that the previous government also had a one-stage process that also allowed proponents to put forward the regulatory changes that were necessary to facilitate their bids. So it is quite hypocritical of Senator Minchin to draw attention to that fact as though it was an area that was problematic in the eyes of the ANAO While the ANAO has commented on it, it was, in fact, the practice of the previous government as well. Hence, one own goal to Senator Minchin. The government is also pleased to note that the ANAO considers that the process was conducted well, and it is very important to note, Mr Acting Deputy President, that the ANAO has not made any recommendations.

This, I think, is a reasonable indication that, while this is a worthy analysis of the process, there is no subsequent action required by the government in the opinion of the ANAO arising out of this performance audit. I also agree with the ANAO's view

and, as you would presume, the government does, that the process was conducted well and in accordance with Commonwealth procurement guidelines. Again, in stark contrast to the picture Senator Minchin sought to present in the chamber in his presentation. Notwithstanding that, as we know the RFP process did not result in a successful outcome for several reasons, including - no proposals were sufficiently well developed to present a value-for-money outcome, proposals lacked committed private sector funding, and regulatory changes sought by some proponents could have given rise to significant risks for the Commonwealth. The ANAO also noted in its report the impact of the unforeseen global financial crisis and concluded that this factor significantly reduced the prospect of a successful outcome. The ANAO also noted in its report that the panel and the ACCC advise that fibre to the premises was preferable technology to fibre to the node. Just to make sure everyone is clear on this, when the original request for proposals was put to the market, it was for fibre to the node.

As we now know, Labor's policy is for a fibre-to-the-premises network. The NBN RFP process was a very valuable one to the government

because it allowed the government to test the market and understand exactly what it was capable of delivering. It provided a pathway to fast-track Australia to a world-class fibre-to-the-premises digital future. That, Mr Acting Deputy President, will benefit all Australians. 'That's all from Order In The House this week. Parliament will resume later today.' Closed Captions by CSI

RADIO BLEEPS THEME MUSIC

(HUMS)

Shh! I'm trying to think. You're wasting your time, Mousy.

Jump. Well, that was a smart move. You see what you made me do? That's all I wanted to know. Ah! Who is it? Smith? Yes. I bet he'll be glad to get down here where it's nice and warm

after a trip over those cold mountains. All right, Molly, supper. Don't rush me. You're certainly a lot of help in a checker game. Leave it to Hanson. All I said was jump. Yeah. I thought Marky was supposed to start back with Smith. He'll be along after a while. He's flying the slowest crate in the outfit. Stew again? Is that all you know how to cook? Why don't you be like me, my friend? I eat it, shut my eyes and think of chicken.

Listen, if you don't like the food here, don't blame me. Tell Ellis. He buys it, I don't. Yeah. He's certainly got a nerve charging $30 a month for grub like this. Right, my friend. Hello, Smith. Shall I keep Marky's supper hot for him? You needn't bother. He won't be back. What happened?

Same thing that happened to Williams and Blake.

Did you see it? Yeah. He was about a thousand yards ahead of me. Over Los Gados Pass, we got caught in a downdraft. I saw him fighting for elevation, and... ..then a wing buckled. Poor devil. Today it was Marky. Tomorrow, or next week, it'll be one of us. What's to prevent it?

I'll tell you - nothing! Shut up! I'm sorry.

You're getting jittery. Molly, get him a drink. Come on, boys, come on. Now, the going's tough enough down here without any hysterics. Let's cut it out. How about a little chow? No, thanks. Cash or credit? Charge it, I haven't got any money with me. You'd imagine that at a time like this, Ellis would give a man a drink instead of charging him for it. Ellis never gives anything away, ever. You know that. What did he say when you told him about Marky? Oh, he felt pretty bad. Sure. Every trip over the mountains means $800 to Ellis. It's tough losing a ship and a pilot just when business is getting good. Don't worry about Ellis. He'll have another man on his way down here before the week's over. And another condemned crate for the poor fool to fly in. Smith tells me the motor shook the wings off Marky's plane. I told you to fix that ship. Mr Ellis, I'm not a magician. It was good for another thousand hours. What about the men who try to keep those flying coffins in the air? You don't worry about them. Smith, there's no place in this business for sentiment. It's a plain matter of arithmetic. You fellas are hired to keep supplies moving into the mines. I'm here to see that you meet your schedules. If I fall behind, the companies will bring in their own planes and you'll all be out of luck. Did it ever occur to you that you'd improve your service if you bought planes that wouldn't fall apart? New planes cost a lot of money. Oh, sure, but men are cheap. You can buy all the pilots you want for chickenfeed. If you don't like the way I run my business, you can quit. Quit, huh? There isn't one of us can get a job anywhere else, and you know it. That's your problem, not mine. Hello, operator? Relay this to the cabling office. George Wilson, Fairhaven Connecticut, USA. Can use experienced pilot. Best planes and flying field this part of world. If interested, New York banker will advance transportation. "Can use experienced pilot. Best planes and flying field this part of world. If interested, New York banker will advance transportation." You're going to wear that out, you've read it 50 times.

Well, I'll keep on reading it. You know, we've got an awful lot to thank this fella Ellis for. Honestly, Lee, this is almost too good to be true. To think that eight weeks ago you thought you'd never get another job. And it's not only a job I'm getting now, but a South American honeymoon. I never believed much in good luck signs, but do you remember what the orchestra was playing that night we met? No, I don't. Orchids In The Moonlight.

(LAUGHS) Well, we'll have orchids and moonlight and soft music for a long time now. This is South America. And this is Delgado. Doesn't look like much from up here. Doesn't look much better down there, either. Mousy? Mousy! Mousialovitch! What is it? There she is, our new plane. (YAWNS) Did you say 'new'? From here almost I could see the wrinkles on her nose. Well, she's a new ship to us. Ships always are new and the pilots haven't got chance of getting old. Remarkable, Mr Ellis. Vamoose! Mr Ellis? Yeah. I'm Wilson. All right. Find your quarters in there. I...I don't think you quite understand. I'm...I'm the new pilot. I'm Wilson, reporting for duty. All right, all right, I'll talk to you later. Oh, Lee darling, this is Mr Ellis. Mrs Wilson, my wife. I'm very pleased to meet you. Who told you to bring your wife? Well...we've only been married three months. I wouldn't take a job unless she was with me. All right, what are you waiting for? Get it unloaded.

Hello, Ellis. Nice ship, huh? Yeah, beautiful. How's she handle? Like a threshing machine. Doesn't Mr Ellis strike you as a peculiar sort of person? I don't know. It's probably just his way. He certainly was glad to see me.

I suppose I should have cabled him you were coming along. Or left me at home.

Oh, don't be silly. You're my good luck charm. I'm afraid it won't work with Ellis. That was a case of hate at first sight. Oh, now that's just your imagination. Look, darling, you wait here. I'll run in and see what it's like.

Hello. I'm Wilson, the new pilot. Howdy. You play checkers? No, I'm sorry. Bridge, backgammon, but no checkers. You'll find a room down the hall. It will be charged to your pay. We eat at six. If you want a drink, call Molly. Charged to your pay. Well, hello. Oh, how do you do? Oh, gentlemen, this is my wife. What you say? Well, I was trying to introduce you to my wife. Well, let me introduce you to Delgado. Take a good look. Fine place for a woman. Well, I like that. What do you think I am? Shut up.

You'll find a room at the end of the hall. Ellis'll probably charge you double for it.

Orchids And Moonlight. And me with a new flying outfit. Tomorrow I'll give it a good scrubbing. A few pictures and curtains and it'll be perfectly all right. Oh, now look, Lee, you... you can't stay here. What's bad enough for you is good enough for me. I know, but darling, listen, this place is... No, those men... Hang that up for me like a dear. Oh well, there's one consolation. It can't last forever. A year's salary should put us on our feet. After all, this will be a fine place to save money.

Hello, Paul. Hiya.

How's old Tailspin? Look at him. All right, boys, you can eat now. Tell 'em supper's ready. Come and get it. What's the idea with the uniform, Mousy? I hope the odour of mothballs will not annoy you gentlemen. (LAUGHS) Besides, we have a lady for dinner, no? That's right, and don't forget it. That goes for all of you. Over there.

DISH CLATTERS That's enough of that. Get out. Who is the boss pilot? He is. Can you tell me which plane I'll draw? Well, you might draw the new plane. The one you came up in. New?

Why, they stopped making that model eight years ago. If that isn't a condemned crate, I never saw one that was. Yeah well, that, Mr Wilson, is the flagship of the Trans-Andean line. You'll be lucky to draw it. Any more questions? Yes. The cable said best planes and field in this part of the country. Where are they? If Ellis had planes like that he wouldn't need fellas like us to fly them. I don't understand. You don't think we work here cos we like it, do you? Your husband wouldn't be here, would he, if he had a clean record in the States? I want to tell you something. Every new man that lands here thinks that he's the first and only black sheep. (LAUGHS) Well, we're all black sheep.

We're not interested in dishing dirt, so we tell it once and let it ride. Might as well get it over with.

This is Mousy. Once, Colonel Mousialovitch of the Imperial Russian Army. Honoured. That's enough, Mousy, sit down. He was shot down during the war and never had nerve enough to take to the air since. But he's a wizard at keeping rheumatic motors ticking. Over there's Mr Hanson. You've heard of him. He flew over the North Pole. Developed a blind spot and was grounded. But he can still fly aces around most licensed pilots. On my right, we have the old timer. He crashed a transport ship with ten people. They all died. Pass me the meat, will you? Naturally, he was grounded. Well, Mr Wilson, how about your little bedtime story? Bunch of us wanted to see a football game up at Newhaven, and, well, I borrowed the plane from the company I was working for to fly us up there, and... ..I don't know, I guess I had a few too many drinks. Anyway, I...I didn't allow enough clearance for the landing field... ..and I sliced off the top of an automobile. I...I killed one man. I...I was suspended. All for five gin rickeys. Bad boy. Yes sir, bad boy. Oh, I beg your pardon. I forgot the company drunk. Never mind, I'll tell my own story. All right, go ahead.