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) becomes resurgent, then

ideology has created problems

that are virtually snatched

defeat out of the jaws of

victory. And obviously whether

the ideology is conservative or

Liberal if it isn't founded

firmly on reality, if it

doesn't take into account the

desires of the people and the

countries involved, if it

doesn't take into account the

international structure of

diplomacy, it's a recipe for

failure, not progress. So you

clearly don't think that these

mistakes are being repeated

only in Iraq. You've just

mentioned Afghanistan there.

Are there other places where

you fear they may be repeated.

For example, Iran? I don't

think you're going to see them

in Iran. There's almost a

cottage industry in publicising

an American invasion of Iran

which nobody in the security

community here is preparing for. I don't think you're

going to see any parallel there

is. You do see problems in

many other countries for

example Somalia where you

created a climate where you

really have to wonder if in

backing an Ethiopian invasion

and a tribunal power structure

you're going to make things

better or worse. But right now

the United States is focussed

primarily on Iraq. In the case

of Afghanistan I think there is

a new degrees of realism. When

you look at the actual

commanders and the ambassador

in Iraq I think you see that

realism, too. The problem now

much more than anything else,

is how Washington deals with

Iraq and the almost polarised

partisan debate of either staying the course without

properly adapting or leaving

without thinking about the

consequences. Are you worried

that as the presidential

election draws near the urge to

get out of Iraq will be

overwhelming even for a

president that right now wants

to stay there? I don't think

you're going to see that. The president has absolutely

nothing to gain from rushing

out. Any historical

justification of what he's done

has to defend on staying at

least to achieve some kind of

cosmetic victory. And there is

a deep set of divisions among

the various candidates. The

Democrats in general are

pressing for early withdrawal.

The Republicans are much more

cautious. I think the real

difficulty about this partisan

debate is that rather than exploiting the kind of

opportunity we may still have

and seeing if we can make

things work in ways the Iraqis

will find acceptable over time,

we impose an American debate on

Iraq and we either are not

flexible enough in staying or

we rush out without having

really considered the consequences, particularly to

the Iraqi people. Let me stick

with this path for a moment,

because in order to achieve

security you'll have to have

fully-trained Iraqi security

forces. Now explain for us how

you see comparisons between

Vietnamisation - that word from

the Vietnam War - and what's

going on in Iraq? Well, there

are very important differences.

One of the most critical

problems in Iraq is you need

local security and that has to come from the police and from

the militias. In Vietnam the

Vietcong were largely defeated.

The problem was an invasion by

North Vietnamese forces. Here

the problem is you have a host

of civil conflicts. You've got

to police training far too

late. It is beginning to catch

hold. It now is hopelessly

complicated by the presence of

militias and untrained local

police. The Iraqi army is a

very small force. It, too,

frankly was kept too small, too

badly equipped, underfunded.

It really wasn't till 2005 the

training program became

serious. It wasn't until 2006

a year ago you had enough

inbeds and trainers to create

serious combat capabilities.

For the indefinite future, this

will be a force without

artillery, without armour,

without air support, without

modern communications and

intelligence. Now in the case

of the Vietnam forces, we over

equipped them with very modern

weapons they couldn't afford

and couldn't sustain and the

moment a flood of US aid was

cut off the structure

collapsed. Here we may rush

out before the Iraqi army is

really ready and can possibly

support itself and long before

the police is properly trained

and equipped, or the Iraqi Government can deal with the

various militias. You seem to

have come to the conclusion in

relation to that, that the

argument for rushing out is

supported by facts which are

incorrect about the training,

the reporting of the training

of the security force. You

say, "It's the same tissue of

lies, spin, distortion and

omissions I saw in Vietnam" .

That's a pretty extraordinary

statement and I'm wondering,

what would be the point of

doing that? Of lying about it

in Iraq? I think the problem is

what you do is you constantly

exaggerate. You constantly

spin. Now the fact is that

politicians do this. It's

almost the price of leadership.

You don't give balanced

objective arguments if you want

to motivate people. But

particularly when you have a

war where your expectations are

not met in any form, or the

political development doesn't

meet your ideological goals, or

you go through some $38 billion

in aid money and Iraqi money

and the end result is the

national economy is worse off

than when you started. When

you talk about first bitter

enders or diehards then you

talk about a narrow group of

ideological fanatics and then

step-by-step, you are forced to

see there really is an ethnic

and sectarian war that you've

denied for three years. You

create a climate where what you

say is almost decoupled from

reality. That unfortunately,

has not been what the US

military or the US intelligence

community is doing at a

classified level, but it is how

the administration has been

testifying to Congress. It is

the kind of speech that's still

being given. Things have

gotten somewhat more reality

over time, but only because the

situation has deteriorated.

People still seem to be living

in ideological expectations

that are decoupled from the

realities on the ground. Dr Anthony Cordesman, sadly we are

out of time. We thank you very much for taking the time to

come and talk to us this

morning your time, this evening

our time. Thanks for the opportunity.

They may not know it but one

in ten Australians with high

blood pressure could be cured.

Researchers say there's a

particular type of the disease

that is treatable and it's more

common than people think.

Sophie Scott reports. Judy-Ann

Hawkins was told 15 years ago

that she had high blood

pressure. But she only found

out two years ago that she had

a particular type of

hypertension, and there was a

cure. I was excited because I

didn't want to have medication

after taking it for 15

years. Her adrenal glands were

overactive causing her body to

retain salt. One of her glands

was removed with keyhole surgery. The impact is

profound. Patients go from

being on as many as three or

four drugs due to hypertension,

down to zero. I can do more

things. I work, so I feel

better at work. Researchers at

the University of Queensland

have found this type of high blood pressure is more common

than previously thought. It's

now known through work first

pioneered by Professor Gordon

at our unit and later by other

unit s that this is, in fact, a

common cause of hypertension

has been overlooked and

probably accounts for more than

10% of patients with high blood

pressure levels. The condition

has no real symptoms. Doctors

can pick it up through a blood

test, but can only confirm it

through a much more detailed

examination. The condition is

herd taxpayer and researchers

are looking for a way of

identifying children who might

be at risk when they get older.

Time for the weather:

That's all from us. Lateline

Business coming up in a moment.

If you'd like to look back at

tonight's interviews or review

Lateline's stories or

transcripts, you can visit our

website. But now, here's Lateline Business with Ali

Moore. Thanks, Tony. Tonight

- talk of a turnaround. Recent rain boosts confidence in the

rural economy. We saw trading

conditions pick up, we saw

profitability pick up and also

businesses starting to hire

more. A tax on business drk addiction and the drugs trade

cut profits by billions a year.

And 20 years of the ASX, the

battle behind the formation of

Australia's national

exchange. It wasn't just

telling a story of amalgamating

six State-based Stock

Exchanges, but State's

legislation and in-fighting. To

the markets and Australian

shares shed early gains to

finish highly higher ahead of

tomorrow's key inflation

numbers. The All Ordinaries

gained five points held back by

profit taking among major

banks. The benchmark ASX200

added two points. The Nikkei

ended the day flat. The Hang

Seng held steady thanks to

gains in blue chips and the

FTSE has started the week in

negative territory. The

world's biggest banking

takeover has moved a step

closer with ABN Amro agreeing

to a record $109 billion offer

from Britain's Barclay's Bank.

Should the deal succeed, the

combined group will be based in

Amsterdam and boast more than

47 million customers in 70

countries. Analysts say

today's news may just be the

start of a bidding war as ABN

Amro's board is still talking

to rival parties. For more on

the Barclay's deal and a look

at early trade in London I

spoke with Tom Hougaard chief

market strategist at City

Index. Thanks for joining us.

We've heard about the ground

broking Barclay's ABN Amro

deal. Is this signed and

sealed? There have been other

contenders, haven't there? I

don't think that deal is in the

bag by any stretch of the

imagination. You've got very

proactive banks here in the UK

amongst others, the Royal Bank

of Scotland who has always been

very quick on the acquisition

front. Now the deal makes

sense from a Barclay's point of

view in the sense they'll get a

far wider global appeal but I

don't think that their

competitors, amongst them a

Hispanic bank and also Royal

Bank of Scotland, I don't think

they're going to let them run

away with this trophy without a

good fight. I think we're in

for another counterbid. I know

this group of banks I just

mentioned are meeting again

today with ABN Amro. Let's see

what unfolds in the course of

the next 48 hours. We'll learn more by Wednesday or Thursday. British Airways is

having a look at taking a look

at a tilt at a Spanish

rival? Yeah. One of the things

I always look at when I hear

stories is, how's the market

reacting to this? British

Airways is flat on the day and

while strategically it makes

sense for British Airways, I'm

not sure that the investors are

truly believing in this venture

just yet, otherwise we would

see a share reaction. For the

time being that's just one of

those stories that it needs to

gain more maturity before we

believe it. No share reaction,

but in fact overall it's been a

quiet start to the week for the

FTSE, hasn't it? It has been.

We saw phenomenal end to last

week in the Dow closing so near

the 13,000 mark. This morning

when we came in we were not

making much progress in Asia

and I think a lot of investors

just feeling, "Well, I'm in no

rush to buy until I see how the

Dow will perform after such a

stellar gain. " We're in the

midst of the earning season.

We're also approaching what I

call the golden season where we

are - you may already know

this, but the period from

October to May has been known

as the really strong period. We're so agonisingly close to

the beginning of May, maybe

people are beginning to wonder if we are going to see selling

go away. Maybe they're not

queuing up to stock up nt

portfolio. Maybe not, but we're

close to 13,000 on the Dow? And

we will absolutely see 13,000.

I've rarely seen an index come

close to a round number without

touching it. Overall it

doesn't mean much. It is going

to mean a lot to investors now is going to see the earning

season how it pans out.

Usually when you hit into earning season you're going to

see two steps forward, two

steps back. You're always

going to have surprises to the

downside. Overall the bigger

trend is up. The only thing

that the warning sign

potentially here is the sal

Macquarie Banko. It's having

investors on the sideline. --

Salam anco. Now for a quick look at the major movers on our

market today: Those falls in the dollar

were triggered by a softer than

expected wholesale inflation

rate for the first three months

of the year. The producer

price index came in flat for

the quarter and on an annual

basis it rose 2.8% - the lowest

rate since 2004. The strong

Australian dollar significantly

cut the cost of imported goods.

While the trend is promising,

tomorrow's consumer inflation

number is likely to play a keel

role in determining whether the

Reserve Bank raises rates at

its board meeting next week.

The prospect of higher interest

rates and the worst drought in

recorded history are real

problems for the rural economy.

But recent soaking rains in the

eastern States have had an

immediate and positive impact

on rural confidence. In fact,

the NAB's quarterly

agribusiness survey shows

tentative signs of a

turnaround, with economic

conditions better than they've

been for two years. Brigid

Glanville reports. With more

rain desperately needed to

support farmers, the relatively

healthy state of business in

the bush has surprised

many. We've seen that drought

conditions have persisted right

through into the first few

months of this year and one

would - you wouldn't be

surprised if you had confidence

and conditions were down in

this particular sector of the

economy, but that hasn't been

the case. In fact there's a

lot of confidence about the

longer term outlook. It

doesn't take much to lift

confidence in the bush, and

good rain across the eastern

States has farmers hoping the

worst of the drought is now

behind them. But the survey

not only marks a change in

confidence. Financial returns

across most sectors are also

up. Food and manufacturing,

wholesale and finance are all

benefiting from a surge in

spending. The retail sector is

lagging, with non-essential

items a long way off farmers'

shopping lists. We saw trading conditions pick up,

profitability pick up and also

businesses starting to hire

more as well. So you could

also get the fact that consumer

spending seems to be ticking

along nicely at the moment.

Sales ticking up. Maybe some

of that is filtering down into

the agribusiness sector as

well. While farmers are the

eternal optimists, confidence

may be fleeting. The Southern

Oscillation Index has dropped

to minus 14 - the lowest in

five months, suggesting a

greater chance of drought.

Rural businesses listed on the

Stock Exchange such as Incitec

Pivot have fallen over the last

week due to ongoing drought

conditions. CommSec expects to

see it fall further. A range of

industries is exposed to a lack

of rain. Farmers obviously

need the rain to get a crop and

harvest it. If that doesn't

happen, anything from retailers

to banks which are driven in

those rural communities will

suffer. Despite five years of

drought, rural businesses are

still banking on rain and

better times ahead. Greg

Gailey will leave the company

later this year. The

61-year-old took control in

2001 when the business, known as Pasminco went into

administration, owing $3

billion. Its shares have risen

8-fold since they returned to

the ASX. Today Zinifex

finalised a deal struck in

December last year to create

the world's biggest zinc

smelter by combining assets

with Umicore. Shares closed

half a percent higher. It's 20

years ago this month since

Australia's sixth State-based

Stock Exchanges joined forces

to become one national

exchange. To mark the occasion the Australian securities

exchange or ASX has

commissioned a book recapping

the dramatic events which led

to its creation. Dana

Robertson was at the launch in

Sydney this afternoon. --

Andrew Robertson. The

Australian securities exchange

sits at the pinnacle of the

Australian financial services

sector, a world leader in

innovative trading of shares,

trading and derivative s. In

her new book 'National

Market/National Interest', Edna

Carew tells how the ASX was

born out of the failure of six

State-based and

broker-controlled exchanges to

cope with the mining boom and

must of the 1960s and '70s. I

wasn't just telling a story of

amalgamating six State-based

Stock Exchanges. I was talking

about State's rights and

legislation and in-fighting

amongst the States and

rivalries and so forth as well

as a growing cast of players who were trying to make all

this happen. Members of the

cast as well as current leaders

of the financial world gathered

today. In 2005/6, mining,

including services to mining

comprised 5.9% of the economy.

The finance and insurance

industry comprised 8.5%. Helping change the mood

and lay the groundwork for what

became the ASX was the 1974

report of a Senate inquiry into

the securities industry which

exposed many of its rorts. The

man who headed that committee

was former Tasmanian Senator

Peter Rae. There was vested

interest. A lot of people were

making money out of behaving in

an improper way. There were

abuses and malpractices which

people didn't want revealed.

There's nothing new. It's been

going on since time immemorial

and still going on. It was

prevalent at that time. 20

years ago Ronald Coppel was

leading the body which

represented Australia's six

Stock Exchanges. The Rae

Report gave him ammunition to

push for State

unionification. Interstate

rivalry was hard at the time.

We had to come up with a

solution to persuade enough

people to accept. Therefore we

had to be careful to take into

account the things terribly

important to them. The deal was

done when representatives of

all six exchanges were locked

in a Sydney hotel room and

bluntly told not to leave until

agreement was reached. Peter

Marshman had no doubt what

failure would have meant. We

would have become largely

irrelevant with growing

exchanges in China, Singapore,

Malaysia. We had to do

something - that's the real

reason why G 4 was able to

succeed. The rest, as they say,

is history and those present at today's book launch who were

involved in the battles of the

'60s, '70s and '80s say the ASX has exceeded expectations.

Chairman of the ASX and

long-time member Maurice Newman

has been involved since the

beginning. He started in 1958

and joined the board in 1909

before becoming chair four

years later. He's also chair

of the ABC. I caught up with

Maurice Newman at the ASX in

Sydney earlier this evening.

Maurice Newman, welcome to Lateline Business. Thank

you. You've been chairman of

the ASX for 13 years, been on

the board for 17 years, in the

two decades since Australia got

a single national Stock

Exchange, what do you think has

been the most significant development? Well, the most

significant development was the

demutualisation and delisting

of the exchange and, of course,

the most recently the merger

with the city Futures

Exchange. Indeed you talk about

that merger and we have seen consolidation in the industry.

You said recently we'll see

consolidation on a scale now

unimaginable. What were you

thinking? Well, I'm thinking

the sort of things which we've

been seeing overseas with New

York looking to merge with the

euro next which is the major

European exchange network, with

Nasdaq looking to acquire the

London exchange, Deutsche board

looking to merge with the

London Stock Exchange. These

things were unimaginable even

five years ago. Now we just

accept them as being the

natural evolution of

markets. So where does

Australia fit in this? I think

that's still being played out.

We're just looking at

opportunities as we have been

for many years, but we are now

at least a player on a global

scale, which had we not had the

approval to merge the two

exchanges would have run the

risk that we would have drifted

into irrelevance. One of the

biggest issues facing the ASX

since it demerged and delisted

is the potential conflict

between being a for profit

company and being the market

regulator. You chair a

separate supervision company

but that hasn't silenced

critics, has it? There are some

critics you can never silence,

there are some people who won't

accept that what we have is a) supervisor, supervisory operation which is quite

discrete. It's separate from

the operations area of the

exchange, that the staff are

separate. They're compensated

differently. So to the extent

that it is possible to provide

an arm's length supervisory

area I think we've achieved

that. That won't satisfy

everybody. People will always

want to see some sort of

conflict. Some people have

agendas which they run for

particular reasons . I think

what we have, remembering that

ASX is essentially the

neighbour watch. We're not the

policeman, we don't enter

buildings and seize documents.

We shine the torches in the

window and see whether or not

things are as they should be.

We do ring the police, which is

ASIC. I think the working

relationship we have with ASIC

is totally appropriate and

proper. Works very well. It's

not perfect, never will be a

perfect system and, of course,

it's an evolutionary system.

Things keep moving on. The abuses in the marketplace

change over time. So you've

always got to be aware and

alive to that. But I think if

I look around the world and I

say this as impartially and

dispassionately as I can, I

think ASIC and ASX work

together in a way which is as

good as I see anywhere else

anywhere. There's no doubt the

ASX has issued more price

queeries or speeding tickets in

recent times. There's been

enormous number of case where

is we've seen run-up in prices

before announcements or trading

halts. To name two cases Rebel

and Promina, are you

comfortable with those sorts of

price spikes? You're never

comfortable if you think a

market is being manipulated.

The whole idea is for markets

of integrity to be transparent.

If people have information

which they ought not to have

and use for their own profit,

clearly the market isn't working as they should. We

have laws to stop people

robbing banks. They do.?

that's not to say the system is

corrupt or something's wrong.

There are people who attempt to

deceive the whole system and

are not - they are not

complying with the spirit as

well as the letter of what

we're about. It's a minority

and we ought not to think that this is something

widespread. You would say there

is insider trading going

on? I'm sure there is and I'm

sure some of it is detected,

some of it may go undetected. How much do you

think slips under the radar? I

don't know. I would think it's

quite small and limited. And

simply because people aren't

reading about it everyday

doesn't mean to say there

aren't inquiries that are

ongoing and won't ultimately

lead to prosecution While we're

on regulatory issues, ASIC has

taken legal action against the

entire board of James Hardie including non-expective

directors. I know you won't

comment about specific cases

but more broadly, what do you

think of the breadth of that

action? Well, it has serious consequences. I think one of

the things we need to be

careful of is to require

directors to get into the

kitchen and start managing

companies. If you want to do

that you may as well get rid of management and have the board

to do that or replace

non-expective directors with

expective directors. So I

think that there is a need for

critics to separate in their

minds the ability of boards to

carry out the proper

supervision of the operations

of the company and to become

totally involved in every

aspect of the business. It

isn't possible and I think even

chief executives can't be

expected to know every single

thing that goes on within their

organisation. So I think the

separation between the board

and management is important so

that boards themselves don't

become complicit in actions

which are undesirable and if

you're going to have a board

which is able to carry out the

supervision of the corporation,

they need to be distanced from the actual management of

it. What are the ramifications

of this? We have to wait and

see. All I'm saying is that

there is a danger these things

can drift in a way where the

directors are themselves

becoming managers. I think

that's undesirable. Do you

think it's become harder to get

directors? I think it will be

more difficult. You'll always

be able to get directors.

Whether you can get the quality

and calibre of people you want

to be directors is the issue.

People who jealously guard

their reputation don't want to

set themselves up to be shot at

and for that reputation, which

has been hard-won, just erased

through no fault of their own

by being in a place at a point

of time. Given your near

50-year perspective, what do

you make at the moment of the

almost a deal a day involving

private equity? I think it's

the sort of thing that in my

view is end of cycle. We've

had a market that's been

running up now probably for 20

years, with some corrections,

by by and large it's been a

pretty steady run up. So the

sort of activity we're seeing

is reminiscent of what we've

seen in previous bull market

runs. What's going to bring it

all down? What's going to tip

it? Well, if you have a Sim

metrical tips and pricing, the

market will correct it. In

terms, though, of tipping, will

it come from America, from the

US? I think the US is the most

likely driver, it might be

indirectly engineered out of

China or somewhere else. When

you look at the imbalances that

are currently in the US economy

that is something which is of

concern and if that should

unravel then it will have consequences everywhere,

including here. Maurice Newman,

many thanks for talking to

us. A pleasure. Illegal drugs

like ecstasy are costing Australians billions a year

with most of the burden falling

on business. Drug reform

campaigners argue tough law

enforcement policies are not

working. They now want the

corporate world to support a

change in direction in a bid to

save both money and lives.

Philip Lasker reports. Money

talks and those wanting a new

approach to the war on drugs

also want to enlist

business. Business leads to be

sensitised I think to the issue

and to understand that it's an

issue for them. It's as though

they are being taxed by

something like $3.5 billion a

year extra. Drug law reform group the Drug Law Reform

Foundation has released a study

which for the first time puts a

financial cost on illegal drug

use in Australia. It found the

financial burden for

individuals and their families

was $1.7 billion a year. The

bottom line for Government was

the same. But the cost to

business was almost twice that

paid by the other groups. It's

the equivalent of a 2% tax on

corporate profits, a tax which

the foundation says is rising,

despite the resources ploughed

into tougher law

enforcement. When you look at

the drug problem that way, you

can't help but be convinced

that we're spending an awful

lot of money going nowhere. The

report says illegal drug use

manifests itself in sick days,

lost productivity, crime,

workplace accidents and higher

health and insurance costs.

Not to mention its impact on an

already tight jobs market. It

takes people out of the legal

workforce into illegal activities and, therefore, reduces the workforce

available. According to the

foundation, a social and

health-based approach delivers

better value than a focus on

tougher laws. The needle

syringe program cost Australian

governments $150 million over

12 years and saved the

Australian community between

$2.4 and $7.7 billion. The foundation says business should

be concerned by the

increasingly massive flow of

economic resources to the

illegal drug trade. Ultimately,

this is a question for the

business community because the

illicit drugs business is a

$322 billion US a year

business. It's estimated in a

secret report to the UK Cabinet

in 2003 that 26-58% of the

turnover of the illicit drugs

industry is profit. Now who

better than business to

understand what those figures

mean and to realise that the

game is up when the drug

traffickers have more resources

and better equipment than the

drug law enforcement authorities. The foundation

says the game needs players

with a business-like

unsentimental results-based

approach. Not those who play

politics. In this time of

record low unemployment,

recruitment firms are scouring

the globe for the best

available talent. But the

traditional methods used by

search firms including

recommendations and references

are making way for web-based

search tools like Google.

Recruiters are now using the

Internet to check the histories

of their candidates - a trend

which civil liberty advocates

say breaches our right to

privacy. Simon Palan reports.

Like a jet fighter leaving a

vapour trail in the sky, many

people leave information trails

on the Internet. Often trails

of personal information they

had prefer to hide.

Recruitment firm physical

talent II Googled one of the

name of its candidates to find

a newspaper report showing

cocaine possession. We informed

the client around information

we'd found and they chose to

let the candidate go. Most

recruiters search the Internet

for dirt on potential

candidates. LendLease

recruiters use whatever

research tools they can get

their hands on effectively to

make sure we recruit the best people. Social network sites,

blogs, newspaper reports -

almost anyone's name can pop

up. There's virtually nothing

they can do about it. The

growth of available information

has meant that there's more out

there, more that people need to

be careful of. This is a very

public world today and

everything we do can and may

well be seen and may well be

recorded. There are now many

websites specifically designed

to hunt down information on

people. Phone numbers,

criminal records, bankruptcies

- it's often there for everyone

to see. I think it's very

worrying that recruiters are googling candidates to find out

about their background. It's a

stupid way of going about

checking someone's credentials,

because the information is

often wrong. The Federal Government is currently looking

into privacy protection in

Australia. Civil libertarian s

want new laws allowing people

to have adverse Web listings

taken off the Internet The Government have an opportunity

now to put in place privacy

laws and protections that are

going to the prevent Net

monitoring or Google searching

of people from becoming a

situation where it's out of

control. Some believe it

already is. Maybe you could

just create your own history.

Now a look at tomorrow's

business diary.

A look at what's making news

in the business sections of tomorrow's papers. The 'Age'

examines Barclay's record bid

for ABN Amro. The 'Australian'

leads on Zinifex's hunt for a

new CEO. The 'Australian

Financial Review' looks at the

launch of the Government's

election agenda. And the

'Sydney Morning Herald' says

there's more bad news for the

Qantas takeover team. That's

all for tonight. As I leave

you the FTSE is down 17, and

the Dow is down 10 in the first

few minutes of trade. I'm Ali

Moore, goodnight. Closed Captions by CSI