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.
Lateline Business -

View in ParlView

(generated from captions) actually accuse her of making

up stories to suit the

occasion. Well, she said that

Chelsea, her daughter, was

jogging around the towers of

the wthsz on 9/11 and she went

on the Today show, a show like

yours in the United States,

national TV, and she said she

was only saved because she

ducked into a coffee shop at

the last minute and she

actually heard the aeroplane

hit the building or announcer

presenter Katie Corak and said

on 9/11 Mrs Clinton was not

just a senator, she was a

concerned parent. Chelsea wrote

an article four months later

fwha that said she was home in

bed asleep and a friend called

her and said wake up and turn

on the TV and she saw the plane

hit and she was five miles from

Ground Zero. Why did Hillary

make up this story and then she

said she was named after Sir

Edmund Hillary who climbed

Mount Everest but he climbed it

in 1952 and she was born in

1947. Why does she do that?

That's going to be a question

the that will be interesting to

explore. I think it is because

she needed to identify with the

victims of 9/11. She had been

booed by the police and the

firemen and the first

responders and the parents at a

ceremony at Maddison square

garden right before that Today

show interview and she felt she

need add shared empthy with

them and her colleague from New

York shait, her daughter goes

to a high school which is right

next to Ground Zero and his

daughter was in jeopardy on

9/11. So I think she sort of

appropriatated those stories to

herself knowing that they

weren't true and I think that

she has a - it's not that she

is mendacious and lies all the

time, it's that she wants to be

something she's not. Bill is

effortlessly charismatic. He

walks into a room and everybody

loves him. She knows she's not

so she has to kind of pretend

she's something she's not to

make up for that so that people

will relate to her and her

entire presentation is phoney,

anybody can see that and there

is, you know, Bill lies about

sex, Hillary lies about

everything. I think you've

given us a pretty fair idea of

what the Republican attack ads

might focus on if she does run

but do you think there's

anything else beyond her past

activities that the public

doesn't yet know about? There

is one. Bill has been very

involved with due buy, the

capital city of the UAE, the

United arat emirates and the

amere of due buy owho took

power this February is the

second or third richest man in

the world and first he invited

President Clinton to come and

speak in due buy and Bill

Clinton was paid $300,000 for

each of those speeches. But

then the amir gave to a company

in the United States control

over all of his investment

portfolio to make his

investment decisions and set up

a subsidiary of that company to

invest all of his money and

Bill Clinton was the go between

in that deal and is being paid

a brokerage fee for that deal

having been happened. Neither

Hillary or Bill have disclosed

how much that fee is but it may

well be in the millions even

tens of millions of dollars.

She's on her ethic forum said

it's more than $1,000 but

that's all she's required to

say. And after five years, Bill

may be eligible for as much as

$100 million. Dubai is a difficult country for the

United States. Recently the

amir was named in a class action suit for importing

2-year-old boys who were then

raised with stunted growth to

be jockeys on Cam eel s and

then when they're reached

pubity they're let go and have

no way of making a live, have

no education and are physically

disformed. Dubai refines all of

Iran's gas lean and without

Dubai Iran couldn't have any

gas lean and resist US pressure

to cut back on that to pressure

Iran not to develop nuclear

weapons. So there are a host of

issues where an Arab country

paying the husband of the

president of the United States

a vast amount of money that

goes into their joint chequing

account could really be raised

in the campaign and I'm going

to spend some time raising

them. It's a fascinating

psychological portrait you're

painting of Hillary Clinton.

Let's come back to where we started because whereas you

describe Hillary Clinton as a

sort of flawed character,

Condoleezza Rice on the other

hand you seem to think is a

sort of secular saint. Well you

start with the fact that

they're totally different

models of feminism. Hillary got

ahead because her husband was

President, is there anybody in

the world who thinks Hillary

would be running for president

now if her husband hadn't been

president. There was no way she

would have got elected to the

Senate in a state she never

lived in with no primary and

won that steet overwhelmingly

if it weren't for the fact that

her husband were the chief

executive. Condy has made it

entirely on her own. She

started in a ghetto in

Birmingham, Alabama. Her best

friend was killed in the

Birmingham church bombing that

was the most violent act of the

entire civil rights era. She

recalled going to the funeral

and seeing the little coffins.

She got a PhD on her own, wroz

up from some of the most

prestigious dials, note dame

and the University of Colorado.

She became the provoes at stam

ford University, one of our top

10 schools, the chief academic

officer when she was in her

late 30s, became fluent in

Russian and frempbl, she speaks

the language of both of

America's adversaries and she

became really an educated

herself as a foreign policy

expert. So I think they're

alternate mod es of how women

can succeed and I think Condy

is much more au then it than

Hillaries. It's always

interesting getting your

perspective. You've obviously

work on the inside of both

sides of the politics in

America, we thank you for

joining us. Thank you.

now here's

'Lateline Business' with Ali

moor. Tonight - conflicting interests with how can

directors work for shareholders

when they're involved in their

own private equity deals. And

polluter pays, Australia's

biggest retail energy supplier

calls for a carbon trading

scheme.

There should be an

appropriate penalty to incent

those polluters to adjust their

behaviour or mitigate the

carbon emissions and that's the

essence of a carbon trading

scheme.

Straight to the markets now

and the All Ords shot to

another record high boosted by

gains in banks and Telstra. The

ASX 200 also rose adding 48

points. Improved investor

confidence saw the Nikkei shrug

off yesterday's loss. I was a

similar story in Hong Kong with

the Hang Seng up 1%. And the

FTSE has jumped to a 6-year

high in early trading. First,

shares in takeover target

Multiplex gained another 1%

today as investors continued to

weigh up the latest private

equity deal to hit the

Australian market. As Canadian-based Brookfield Asset

Management considers whether to

make a formal bid, the Roberts

family, which controls

Multiplex, has quickly stepped

aside from its duties with the

company. It's in stark contrast

to other takeover targets where

key directors who stood to

benefit from private equity

deals either stayed in place or

had to be forced out. That's

raised the question of just who

some company directors are

working for when private equity

comes knocking at the door.

It's an issue starkly

highlighted a few weeks ago

when then chairman and compeef

executive of West Australian

gas utility Alinta revealed

they were leading a proposed

management buyout. Qantas looks

set to pass into private hands

in what amounts in Australia's

biggest aviation take over. Bob

Browning the man spearheading a

multibillion dollar bid for

Alinta has resigned. Coles Myer

said today it has rejected a $17 billion takeover

offer. Alinta by any measure is

the low point but private equity's embrace of management

and the management buyout has

spawned a number of seriously

conflicted executives an

boards. Shareholders are really

looking to the board and to the

executives to be running the

company on their behalf and

it's very surprising and a

little bit unsettling to see

that get confused. Australian

foundation investment company

is the fourth biggest

shareholder in Alinta with more

than 2.5 million shares. Ross

Barker is chief executive and

says he was surprised to hear

of the management buyout

proposal which cost Alinta boss

Bob Browning and chairman John

Poynton their jobs. We're

actually employing them on

behalf of the owners, our

capital is at risk and we're

wanting there to be people

there who are looking after our

interests primarily and sort of

running the company on our

behalf. And that's the rub. For

company directors the Alinta

case has highlighted the

potential for conflicks of

interest. The main conflict of

interest arises when directors

who are also managers jump ship

on to the side of the private

equity players. That means that

they will have a vested

interest in the share price

going down, which will make

their offer look a lot

better. A key obligation of

company directors is to act in

the best interests of all

shareholders, but not all fund

managers are convinced that

some Alinta directors failed in

their duty. Clime Captials Roger Montgomery believes the strategy, if not the execution

of sacked CEO Bob Browning was

the right one. As a public

company, Alinta simply cannot

compete with private equity for

infra structure assets. They

can't pay the prices private

equity is paying and the reason

is they can't gear as a public

company, nearly anything like

the extent that private equity

d gear asset purchasers. Everyone the ABC

spoke to for this report

including Roger Montgomery

agreed that as drivers of the

management buyout of Alinta Bob

Browning and his chairman John

Poynton had to resign. But at

Qantas, Geoff Dixon remains in

charge despite senior

management there being offered

about $100 million in shares if

the flying kangaroo goes

private. And they could double

that if they meet performance

hurdles. For Stuart Wilson at

the Australian share hold ers

Association there's a key

difference between Qantas and

Alinta. If a private equity

player comes in and puts an

offer on the table, that may

include the retention of the

management team, then it could

be argued that the management

had nothing to do with it.

However, if the management

actively drive the offer, I

think it puts them in a rather

difficult situation and perhaps

they should stand

aside. Another point of tension

is the selling price.

Australian Foundation

Investments is also a big

shareholder in Coles Group with

just under 10 million shares.

It strongly supports last

year's decision by Coles

directors to reject an $18

billion takeover bid from a

private equity consortium led

by Karlsburg Kravis Roberts

believing Coles has a unique

place in the Australian business landscape that can't

be rep I will kailted. We don't want to sell the shares in the

good companies we have and if a

private equity person comes

along and wants to buy one of

our companies from us, we think

they should have to pay up what

reflects the long-term value. Adrian Mulcahiy helps

manage more than $20 billion at perennial investment partners.

He also backs the Coles boards

approach, particularly its

refusal to allow KKR to see the

company's books. The moment a

company allows a new investor

to come in and learn some of

what is valuable and held very,

very close within the company,

you know, that's where there

is, you know, a potential

difference of understanding on

that company when I compare the

shareholders to those

particular approaches. And in

this regard, a management

buyout team has a clear

advantage but according to

Adrian Mulcahiy, the solution

to conflicts of interest rests

with directors themselves. It's

incumbent, particularly on the

independent directors to be

very strong in this particular circumstance and take charge to the interests of

shareholder. While private

equity, which may involve a management buyout is making

life difficult for company directors, the body charged

with providing them with

support says it's important to

keep the issue in perspective.

The institute of company

directors argues the boardroom

has always been a place are

hard issues have had to be

tackled. And institute chief

executive Ralph Evans says

while prooif equity may be

relatively new in Australia,

takeovers is not. Being on the

stock market wrou are

constantly sort of perpetual

auction and there can always be

an offer made for your company.

Different kinds of people are

making offers at this time It

may or may not be comfort to

the next board of a listed

company to receive an approach

from a private equity firm.

Fears of a second half slow

down saw quarry bank shares

suffer their biggest decline in

a month today. The country's

top investment bank says it's

still confident of a strong

rise in its full-year profit

but earnings for the six months

ending March 31 will be weaker.

The decline is blamed on

increased competition for

infrastructure assets from US

rivals and private equity investors. Macquarie Bank

shares fell from yesterday's

record high. They close nearly

3% weaker at $81.40. Centro

Properties Group managed to

deliver some cheery news for

its investors today. First half

profit at Australia's second

biggest shopping centre owner

rose 15% to $163 million. The

key drivers were fees from

managing property funds and

higher rents at its Malls. We

really are very strongly

confirming that our belief that

we can deliver over 7% per

annum compound sus tanable

groit in the long term. Centro

shares finished 2% stronger at

$9.35. The drought has been

blamed for a 40% drop in after

tax profit for Australia's

largest beef cattle producer,

the Australian agricultural

company. AACo today reported a

profit for the year of just

over $10 million compared to

close to 17 million last year.

Despite the drought, the

company has increased both its

herd and its land holdings. It

now runs more than 500,000

cattle on 26 properties in Queensland and the Northern Territory and intends to

continue to expand the herd

size. AACo's northern

properties received excellent

rains and had a good year.

Compeef chuff Don Mackay is

also optimist ic about export

prospects. While trading is

well under way in London and

joining us is Justin Urquart

Stuart. Welcome to the program.

It's been an encouraging start

for European markets. It has.

We have about 0.5% in London.

FTSE 100 just slightly on that.

FTSE 250, slightly smaller

companies slieckly stronger

that in. In Germany and France,

we've had good growths there,

not quite the same sort of

level. Nothing too spectacular

but really coming off what was

good news coming out of the far

east with the Nikkei recover

yg. And again more news of MNE

activity, any big names under pressure? Certainly, yes. You've just been talking about

private equity and London is

covered in the stuff. Every

single company is potentially

underthreat from the private

equity houses these days and

now it's sains brrks, the

supermarket company and it's

the third biggest supermarket

in the UK. It's been owned to a

great extent by the sains brrk

family who has been selling

down and most recently sold some last week and that's

opened the door now for the

private equity guys to go in

and so the vultures are

circling to see if they can

actually pick this one up. We

seem to be having some audio

problem there's but thank you

very much for joining us. Back

home now and a look at our

major market moifrs today.

Transfield Services was the top performer on news the

industrial services group has

begun contract talks in Canada

ahead of tomorrow's expected

record earnings announcement,

BHB Billiton added 1% but

primely relt care finished in

the red after confirming it

will continue pursuing its larger rival.

Well, with climate change

dominating the political agenda

and the merits of a carbon

trading scheme now centre

stage, it's big business which

is watching with a wary eye.

Last night on this program the

boss of Rio Tinto, Leigh Clifford argued the case for

global action rather than

Australia acting alone. But on

the eve of a report by the

Prime Minister's taskforce on

emissions trading, business is

far from united on what should

be done to reduce greenhouse

gas emissions. One player which

will be acutely affected by any

decision is AGL, Australia's

number one gas and electricity

retailer, whose assets include

hydro electric, gas and

coal-fired power generation.

But AGL boss Paul Anthony is in

favour of a price being put on

carbon emissions. Paul Anthony,

who is also in the midst of

merger talking with Origin

joined me earlier this evening.

Thanks for talking to Lateline

Business. You're

welcome. Before we get to

environmental issue, those

merger talks with Origin, how

do you rate your chances of

success? Look, there was a press announcement yesterday.

We are engaged in talks. We're

very pleased about that. We

think the merits of this no

premium merger of equals makes

great sense from an industrial

and financial point of view and

would have the potential to

unlock substantial value for

both sets of shareholders. How

tough is it going to be to get

it through the ACCC? Look, I

think there are obvious

competition concerns. We've put

in bare bone proposals to ACCC

already. We've thought long and

hard about that and I think we

have a good solution to it so I think that's all we can really

say on the ACCC issue but we've

been very creative in looking

at a solution. Well tomorrow

the Prime Minister's taskforce

will release its discussion

paper on emissions trading. The

Prime Minister is talking about

reducing carbon emissions but

at the same time he talks about

not damaging the economy

unfairly. Given there's no

global trading scheme, is it

possible to introduce one into Australia and not damage the economy? I think that's evidenced by the fact that

there's a mass ifr exchange in

Europe at the moment without

any - massive exchange in

Europe at the moment without

any scheme for global trading.

It's one of the largest hubs in

the world in terms of carbon.. Isn't the whole point

of a trading scheme that some

lose and some win depending on

a business's ability to ad here

to emissions targets? I think

the concept is polluter pays

and that is the global, if you

like, mantra that's been

applied to all trading schemes

to do with emissions that there

should be an appropriate

penalty to incent those

polluters to adjust their behaviour or mitigate their

carbon emissions and that's the

essence of a carbon trading

scheme. So do we wait for

global action, certain tlrk

there are many in business who

argue if we go it alone we'll

see jobs and investment move

offshore, are they wrong? I

don't think go it alone has

anything to do with setting up

a carbon exchange per se. You

can't have a carbon exchange

without having a carbon regime

within country. It makes good

sense to have a carbon regime

in country before you set up an

exchange mechanism for it. I'm

not a firm believer you need to

be the last cab off the rank to

get advantage. I'm a firm

believer in taking first move

advantage to get the best - the

very best position and to be a

leader in that field. So do we

wait for a reasonable

expectation of a global scheme

or do we implement our own? I

think the longer you wait the

further you're going to be

behind in terms of having sophisticated trading scheme in

place. It's inevitable that a

scheme has to be put in place

in time and as I said a little

earlier, I believe in first mover advantage. What is that

advantage? I gave an example a

few moments ago that the

trading hub in Europe trading

soefr 1 billion tons of carbon

last year and the funds that flow through that fund were in

the region of $26 billion. Now

if you look at what could be

the position in the Southern

Hemisphere, familiar wlrk with

the Asian markets, the biggest

users of hydro carbons are

going to be India and China

within the next decade, they'll

far outstrip the use of hydro

carbons than say the US. You

can just imagine what, if they

were to engage in some form of

carbon trading, the size of

that trading hub, it would be

enormous. It would well

outstrip the $26 billion worth

of trading that went through

text change in Europe last

year. If Australia takes

advantage of that and uses its deep and wide knowledge based

in trading and banking

sophistication to be the

trading hub, you can imagine

the business benefits for that

that would flow into the country. What about in the

interim, before China and India

come to the party. If we start

now and China and India goes on

with plans to introduce

something like 600 coal-fired

power stations in coming year,

while our corporations are

having to deal with emissions

targets and trading schemes an

emissions caps, don't they lose

while others are not subject to

the same regime? I don't think

that's been the case in Europe

or the US. I think the case in

Europe and the US there's been

a good deal of innovation to

reduce the amount of carbon emissions. People have seized

upon it as an opportunity and particularly a financial

opportunity and we see a very

vibe rant and prosperous

renewable energy business

emerging in the northern

hemisphere. It wouldn't be

there if it wasn't for carbon

trading. So it doesn't have to

hurt business? Well I think by

example it's shown that it

hasn't hurt business in the northern hemisphere. What would

it mean for a company like AGL,

something like 40% of your

power generation is from

renewable sources now but if we

had a trading scheme, what

would it mean for your bottom

line? Obviously it has an

impact on the cost of goods

sold on our business, but to

give an example of our

business, we already take

carbon emission and the price

of carbon into every decision

we make. In just over 12 months

we've spent nearly $2.25

billion in investments in

renewable and low carbon

emission stations an we have a

pipeline somewhere in the

region of 2,000 megawatts of

new generation that will be

clean burn or renewable

generation so we're already

taking those actions right now

so we're well positioned for a

low carbon environment. It does

feature in every single one of

our investment decisions. Would

you take a hit on your bottom

line though given the sheer

weight of your renewable power

generation versus the

non-renewable? I'm not sure if

it means taking a hit on the

bottom line. I think in a responsible environment there

has to be some cost associated

with mitigating carbon and at

the end of the day that's going

to feed through into whatever

product yous sell that use carbons in their production.

I'm not necessarily saying that

by having some form of carbon

regime in place that it's going

to see businesses go out of

business. I said earlier that

certainly hasn't been the case

in the northern hemisphere. We

haven't seen casualties of

this. In fact we've seen a very

vibe rant industry emerge from

it and a very healthy trading

exchange emerge from it. If we

can implement a carbon trading

scheme, if we can reduce

greenhouse gas emissions, why

is it that we get so many

warnings, indeed every time the

Prime Minister talks about it

it's in the context of not unfairly damaging the

Australian economy, of not

penalising Australian worker,

of not hurting Australian

industry? I suppose there's a

natural instringet to maintain

the status quo in any industry.

Change doesn't come lightly.

You have to be an advocate of

change and you have to see the

benefits of upsides are with

change and I think fear of the

unknown but I think it's just

as bad at the moment, certainly

in our industry, if you want to

be a major player in this

industry you have to invest

billions of dollars in power

stations and ding so without

knowing what the imposts would

be of some form of carbon

constrained environment is a

massive investment uncertainty

which we have to grapple with

every day. Removing that

uncertainty would mean we could

invest with certainty, knowing

that our investments are going

to be sound. At the moment

every investment we make there's a cloud hanging over

because there is no price

placed on carbon. What if the

Government doesn't act? I don't

think the world's going to

collapse because of 2% of the emissions aren't being

mitigated but as I said before,

there's a very large growing

body of opinion in the

investment community that they

have to invest in countries and

companies that have a strong

ethical base and a care for the

environment and that means that

if a country doesn't have some

form of stewardship over

emissions, it might affect

investment. It could very well

affect inward investment into

the country. Paul Anthony, many

thanks for talking to Lateline Business. Thank you.

In what could prove a triumph

of David over Goliath, a

Perth-based mining company has

bought a 50% stake in a

disputed claim over a

multibillion dollar uranium

deposit in central Australia.

Norm McLeery believes he beat

dozens of multinational

companies by pegging a midnight

claim on the Angela and Pamela

deposits near Alice Springs.

The matter will go before the

Northern Territory Supreme

Court this week but Mr

McLeery's expedition is already

paying dividends. Segue

resources has agreed to pay

$220,000 and millions of its

shares for a half stake in any

right Mrs McLairy secures. The

entrepreneur says the money

will fund the legal fight. What

I know I need is more corporal

muscle. I need some brain s and

I need some money and some

oomph behind me. I'm only one

man and what I've got now

behind me is a publicly listed company. Segue says if they win the company will have a half

share in one of Australia's

biggest uranium

deposits. Zinifex has had to

shut down prt of its Port Pirie

led smelter because of a steam

explosion that injured a

worker. The shutdown is

expected to cost the company

about $4 million. The accident

happened on Saturday near the

blast furnace when motelen slag

came into contact with water.

The worker suffered steam burns

to his arps. While the furnace

wasn't directly damaged to the

explosion, repairs have to be

made to surrounding equipment.

Zinifex says led and silver

production will be down as a

result. And now to tomorrow's

business diary.Investors are

expecting another set of report

figures from BHP Billiton. News

Corporation is set to release

its latest earnings. Boral

results will provide an insight into the state of the building

industry and the latest

interest rate decision is due,

though no change is expected to

the overnight cash rate of

6.25%. Before we go, a look at

what's making news in the

business secs of tomorrow's

papers.The age has discovered

signs of a recovery in the

Victorian housing industry. The

'Australian' says Macquarie

Bank is about to sell $1

billion worth of assets.

'Sydney Morning Herald' leads

'Australian Financial Review' on the same story and the

says the RBA is worried about

the rising number of

repossessed houses. And that's

all for tonight. If you'd like

to watch any of tonight's

stories again, log on to our

website and watch the show

online or download it as a vod

cast and to write to us our

email address is late

linebusiness and your ABC Closed Captions by CSI

( INDIAN MUSIC ) ( PEOPLE CHATTER ) about my Coles Myer Card. Uh, hello. I'm calling it said I'd bought something... On my last statement, Hello, is that Harrods? catalogue is out this weekend. Yes. Um, I believe your new increase the credit I'd like to see if I can on my American Express Card. Yes. credit card number, please? May I have your

Sir, at Pennsylvania? our customer. Have a nice day. OK. Thank you for being In this era of globalisation, it's common for customer queries to be re-routed to India and answered by someone your local service provider. pretending to be Thank you so much for verifying that. Mr Jones, how can I help? your daytime telephone number, I'd also need the area code first, please.

with overseas customers, To converse names and pretend accents. Indians have adopted Anglicised here's your total. One moment. (American accent) OK, sir, How may I help you today? Good afternoon. This is Debbie.

a beautiful day. MAN: Yes, it sure is In Delhi's call centres, and think like their customers. employees are taught to speak very careful at this point You need to be telling the customer that you're also that you're there for them, will call and want reassurance. because they a lot of times OK, so you want to try these three words, or these three phrases,

with that gusto, with that energy, telling them, "Sure! It's not a problem. "I can do this for you." ALL: "Sure! Certainly. It's not a problem." OK, so let's do it. "Sure. I can do for you... "I can do this for you. Certainly. Not a problem." "Sure. Certainly, yes. Oh, not a problem." (Class laughs) "Sure. I can cancel your account." (All laugh hysterically) The best way to spend the weekend is to go out to the Bondi Beach. The other speciality about this is that it offers a lot of wet wears... It's got... It's a wonderful watery shopping area. Because it's got, uh... You can even buy surfboards, beach umbrellas, OK, beach tables, beach chairs...

I used to think, "Australia's only known for cricket and nothing else." But now my perception has changed totally. Because it's known for some other things also,

like the water games, like the swimsuits. There are many beautiful places also. And the people like to enjoy after 6:00.

I mean, the beer and everything - every day, almost. People all... I mean, all people are mostly red. Red skin. Well, they respect and love every creature of God. They love any kind of animals, like cockroaches. They...they... ..they love them. Multinational corporations are coming to Delhi to invest in new call centres. They follow the lead of GE Capital, American Express and British Airways, who set up contact centres here over five years ago. Call centres can't rely on Delhi's hopelessly archaic telecommunication system, so they've had to create their own infrastructure.

MAN: It's almost as cheap