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.
The Bolt Report -

View in ParlView

(generated from captions) The Government said it was

replacing jerngecan ins with Peter

Slipper of the Opposition, giving

Labor one more vital vote. Selirp

had ratted on his party and he was

hackled by Opposition MPs. He was

symbolically dragged to the

Speaker's chair. Was Jenkins

pushed? Mike Kelly Tweeted that

Jenkins took one for the team,

meaning that he had made the

Government safer. And Jenkins

suggested that he had his throat

cut. He said later that he was

telling a photographer to stop

taking pictures. The Prime Minister

was asked specifically if she, her

staff or her ministers had talked

Jenkins into quitting. Her denial

was qfd. In answer to the The

former member came to see me at

7:30 this morning and advised me

that he would be tendering his

resignation at 9am.

True, Jenkins had seemed frustrated

with controlling such a tense

parliament. But what made

Thursday's swap seem grubby was the

man who replaced him as Speaker.

Jenkins is widely respected as an

honourable man, but slippery Pete

is not. He has had to pay back

thrrs 20,000. There are also

allegations of mystery taxi bills

and an embarrassing video.

That is why the Coalition was

dumping him at the next election,

which he gave as a reason for now

helping helping Labor.

I must say that I've been

encouraged in this opportunity to

serve the parliament in a new way

by the actions of some people in

the Liberal National Party in

recent times. Parliament has a

Speaker with the respect of no side,

as Labor Premier Anna Bligh made clear yesterday.

I have to say as a Queenslander I

have never thought much of Peter's

contribution here. And any scandal

about Slipper will make Gillard's

deal with him look worse. Can the

Prime Minister really afford to

seem sneakier? All for what? The

Independents, keeping Labor in

power, would never force it to an

early election. They would all lose.

Only two things could justify this

sordid swap. First, Labor will

break its promise to Independent Andrew Wilkie to introduce mandatory precommitment technology

on poker machines, a promise wilg

says it must honour by May or he

will bring the Government down. But

Wilkie says it will not renege. The

Government is not so foolish to

think they could burn me. They may

well need me again.

Or, if police do lay charges

against Labor's Craig Thompson over

his own expenses as union official,

he may quit his seat, which could

cost Labor power.

Is this really what this deal is

for? Grubbier, and grubbier.

Christopher Pyne is Manager of

Opposition Business in the House of

Representatives. Thanks for joining

me. Labor says it is the

Opposition's fault that Peter

Slipper has ratted on you. You

virtually drove him out anyway and

Tony Abbott failed to save him. Why

was Slipper about to lose

preselection for his Queensland

seat? Well, the irony, Andrew, of

what has happened last Thursday is

that the Liberal National Party was

moving against peert Slipper in his

preselix in and the Labor Party

decided that he should be made

Speaker of the House of

Representatives, over Harry Jenkins.

It seems unusual that the Labor

Party would have plucked Peter

Slipper from the Liberal Party back

bench. What was it that you guys

had against Slipper that he was on

his way out? Well, my understanding

of the LNP's situation is that the

numbers, which is the - really, the

p situation in politics - had moved

against Peter Smith and Mal Bruf

has got people to support him.

Isn't it about a disgust with Peter

Slipper. What was that disgust

about? Oh, look, I think that Peter

Slipper has had a long career in

Fisher, a tumultuous relationship

with his local newspaper, as well

as local colleagues and LNP

officials. And I think there's been

a move against him for some time,

in his pre-selection. Is that

because he was known to be someone

very lavish with his own expenses,

having to repay some of it? Was it

about his rudeness? Mystery trips

with taxis? Was it about a so-

called video, an embarrassing

video? All those things? Well, I

guess, Andrew, they are all things

that now the Prime Minister will

have to answer for, because she has

adopted Peter Slipper as her own,

by removing Harry Jenkins and

replacing him with Peter Slipper. I

don't know the details, but I know

that now Peter Slipper is no longer

the Opposition's responsibility.

He's now Julia Gillard's

responsibility.

Frankly, she has to come out today

and do a proper press conference,

answering the questions just like

you put to me, about Peter Slipper

and the role she has played, what

she knew and when, in the removal

of a fair and honourable Speaker in

Harry Jenkins, and his replacement

with a member of the Opposition.

But you seem to be going soft on

Peter Slipper. People are putting

the slipper into slipper. Is that

because, as you say, he is a friend

of yours? Well, I've known Peter

Slipper for a long time, 19 years.

T he's been a colleague of mine all

that time. I work with Peter

Slipper as the Manager of

Opposition Business in the House.

He is the Speaker it is not my

responsibility to put the boot into

Peter Slipper. The Coalition is

very, very deeply disappointed that

Peter Slipper would take the

nomination of the Labor Party to

become the Speaker. I'm much more

disappointed - and I think the

public will be very disappointed -

in a Government that was prepared

to dump one of their own, in Harry

Jenkins. I nominated nine other

Labor members on Thursday, none of

whom were allowed to take the

nomination, in order to take an

Opposition vote. It is a cynical,

political move. A squalid

arrangement and deal. I think it

plays into the sense that the

Australian public have of a Prime

Minister who is good at secret

deals, good at special arrangements,

whether it is with the Greens, the

cross benches, whether it is with

competent government for all Peter Slipper, but not very good at

Australians.

Now, I notice that he was being

heckled by some of your colleagues

as he was drarged to the peek's --

dragged to the Speaker's chair.

How do you expect him to be able to

command the respect of the House,

the control of the House, if he

doesn't have the respect of either

side of politics? He will have a

very difficult time in the

Speaker's chair. There is no doubt

about that. I mean, he wouldn't

expect, nor anybody should, for the

Opposition to be firing the

confetti cannons and popping

champagne corks that one of our own

has decided to sell the past and

take the speakership over Harry

Jenkins. It will be very much more

difficult, this parliament. It is

saying something. The last 12

months have already been a pretty

gruelling experience, and a pretty

tooth-and-claw battle between Labor

and Liberal. It has been made a

great deal worse by Labor being

prepared to dump Harry Jenkins, to

save the Prime Minister's own political skin.

Christopher Pyne, it may be bad

news for parliament, it is good

news for journalists. Thank you

very much for joining us!

(Laughs) It is a pleasure. Coming

up - is signing up Slippery Peter a masterstroke or a mistake.

of Mortein since 1957. I've been the face wants to kill me off forever! But now Mortein for our advanced products, Louie. You're no match New Mortein NaturGard - with over 90% natural ingredients, it kills fast. It's tough on flies, not on you. only your vote will save me. Australia, more safe, Mortein! # SONG: # More smart, debate.

Is governments here have always

supplied the Speaker of parliament,

not this time. The Opposition's Christopher Pyne

this week could not nominate a

single Labor politician willing to

accept this great honour. I

nominate the Member for Chisholm

today. I do not accept the

nomination. Oh! So I move that the

Member for Lynes take the chair of

Oh! this house. I decline...

I move that the Member for Brad don

take the chair of the House. I decline the invitation.

The member for Cunningham. The

Member for Capricornia. The Member

for Hindmarsh. The Member for Reid.

The Member for call well. I decline

the nomination by the member.

And so Peter Slipper from the Opposition became Speaker,

effectively giving Labor his vote.

Join meeting is former federal

Treasurer Peter Costello and former

NSW Labor Treasurer Michael Costa.

Was this a masterstroke by Julia

Gillard? Well, time will tell

whether it was a masterstroke. From

a parliamentary tactical point of

view, I think it was a good move on

the part of the Government. How

will it play out in the electorate?

It will be a negative in the

electorate. But she has a buffer.

The interesting thing here, of

course, is that it inadvent

effortly helps Kevin Rudd. Any

buffer that Julia Gillard has is a

buffer for Kevin Rudd. She bought

insurance that she didn't need. The

Independents were not going to vote

her out. She cannot afford this

sneakiness. One of the things it

opens up, of course is the pokies

tax. She no longer needs Wilkie. So

that is a big advantage for her.

The downside of all of this is that

it is a very tawdry deal. Extremely tawdry.

And from now on, Peter Slipper is

Julia Gillard's problem. Now...

How big a problem is he, from your

personal experience I have been in

the parliament with Peter Slipper.

I had to manage him on occasion.

She a problem. His expenses are a

problem. Behaviours are a problem.

From now on, that is Julia Gillard's problem.

So she's now got to justify his

expenses shaefpltz to get him

through the inquiry -- she has to

get him through the inquiry into

the expenses. She has Craig tromp

son on her hands as well. For all

of the talk about elevating

parliamentary standards, for all of

the talk about how a female would

bring a new touch to Australian

politics. It is a tawdry house, and

she is implicated in it. Michael,

this is the bottom line, isn't it?

I don't see that the Independents

would have forced Labor to an early

election that they would have lost themselves. I agree.

Now, she's got this yucky kind of

image to go with it? But she has a

buffer. And the pokies tax was a

real issue. The mandatory

precommitment was a real issue,

particularly in NSW and Queensland.

And if he was true to his word,

Wilkie could have brought down the

Government. The buffer is there.

But Wilkie says, "Oh, no, they

won't burn me, they know that they

need me." Well, I will be surprised

at that. Anything that comes out of

the negotiations is going to be a

lot more palatable to those MPs in

the marginals in Queensland and NSW.

The bottom line with this is that

it is a good parliamentary move.

But I think it is not going to go

down well in the electorate at all.

They don't need Wilkie. That is the

point of the manoeuvre. They don't

know him any more. He can do

whatever he likes. This Government

will survive now on the votes of

the rusted-on Labor supporters, who

are Oakeshott and Windsor, and the

neutralisation of Peter Slipper's

votes. Look, it is good in that

sense. There is a analogy with this.

MalColston did the same thing.

Robert Ray and others in the Labor

Party made it their business to

kill Mal cz Colston. In that

process of killing malColston,

politically, I say, they began

going through everybody's expense,

which had unpredictable results. A

few Liberal ministers were forced

out of office. Senator Sherry - it

led to that affair. It is only fair

in these circumstances that if the

Speaker, somebody has been elevated

to the Speakership, who is under

investigation as we speak, it is

only fair now that the microscope

be put on him, and be put on

everybody else in a similar

situation, including Craig Thompson,

and I predict that the consequence

of this will be that there will be

an inordinate focus again on ethics.

At the end day, it is Julia Gillard

who has put this back in the

spotlight, who has to live with it.

That is where the problem is. If

this bloke, according to all the

press reports and his colleagues'

comments, was abuses expenses for

so long, and so blatantly, why

hasn't it been dealt with in the

past? I don't have any problem with

the light being turned on MPs'

expenses. If they have been abusing

them, it ought to be dealt with.

The irony here, where Tony Abbott

is wrong in the Liberal Party, is

to start focusing on the expenses

now, because he has ratted, rather

than focusing on the issue that was

there all along. That is what

happened with Mal Colston, by the

way. Some people say that Tony

Abbott should note have let things

slide with Peter Slipper, to the

extent where he would have ratted.

I don't think Tony Abbott is to

blame. I made the point, when you

get a parliament where one

Independent is so critical,

everybody has an incentive for

personal gain to go Independent,

right? I mean, Oakeshott, Windsor,

showed how much power you can have,

Slipper is now showing it. The only

thing that amazes me is that we

have not had more people going in

to pan it. Slipper was always a loose cannon. loose

And you look back and you say,

"What could have been done?" The

only thing I think that could have

been done better was that the

administration of the LNP in

Queensland completely ham fistedly

provoked his exit.

I mean this idea... This is the thing...

Who wants to preserve...

Why threaten to expel a guy whose

years before... career is coming to an end, two

expenses! Because allegedly he is rorting his

He is acting inappropriately. He

should go earlier if he is acting

like that. He is under

investigation. Wheen we know the

outcome of that, the parliament

will deal with him. Hang on, two

years out from an election, who

says, "We are going to expel you."

Is the Labor Party saying we are

going to expel Kevin Rudd?

This is the difference. Look,

parliament - has it been a dawn by

replacing Harry Jenkins with Peter

selirp. Or it is a disgrace? I

think think it is a disgrace that

he has been able to survive for so

long with all of the problems he

has. If there was a problem with

this bloke, it should been dealt

with by the Coalition.

A Speaker in charge of

parliamentary standards! I'm not

defending the decision to select

him. He should have been cleaned

out because he had bad expenses and

because he wasn't we made him the Speaker?!

Oh, look, I don't understand it.

Is I'm shamed by this, to tell you

the truth. Overlooked was the fact

that the mining tax was passed

through parliament in the late-

night sitting. Great that we are

going to hit the minor miners for a

bit of extra tax? The way it has

survived has been an unmitigated

disaster. The idea behind all of

this was to create a level playing

field between manufacturing and mining because of the so-called

Dutch disease - I'm not talking

about you here! Oh, thank you. And

what they have ended up with is a

tax that delivers a negative result

in the first year, who knows

whether the assumptions are robust.

They are spending too much? We are

looking at a global economy going

potentially into another

recessionary period. Our mining

exports are under pressure. The

revenues are not there. But the

expenses are certainly there. So

this could be a major disaster.

Is but the Government, Peter, says

that this is to help pay for such

wonderful goodies as increasing the

compulsory superannuation levy from

9% to 12%. Who is paying for that?

Have a look Bill shorten. I think

he put his foot in it this week.

When the conserves say that increasing superannuation from 9%

to 12% over the next seven years is

a cost on employers, they are lying.

It is off-set against real wage

increases. I'm struggling to find

the politics of it here.

The mining tax was supposed to help

pay for the super, but it is coming

out of the workers' wages. Poor old

Bill - he looked like he was

confusing himself, didn't he? When

you increase the superguarantee,

either the employer or the employee

pays it. will pay it. Mostly, the employer

This idea that somehow the

Government pays it was a sneaky

little line that was put

Europe and China.

talks budgets. And Finance Minister Penny Wong

Oops, it is Climategate Mark 2. Two

years ago, a United Nations

conference in Copenhagen, called to

fight global warming, was

discredited when thousands of

emails were leaked from a British

University. They showed top

scientists massaging results,

sensors sceptics and hiding data.

Tomorrow, the UN has another

warming conference in Durban and

thousands more emails from warmist

scientists have been leaked.

Statistic Steve McIntyre runs the

climate audit blog and exposed the

science behind the hockey stick,

that the Intergovernment Panel on

Climate Change showed that the

world was heating faster than ever.

Steve McIntyre thank you for

joining me. What do these latest

5,000 leaked emails show?

Well, they add a lot more context

to the first leak. The first leak

were a thousand emails, and

defenders of the university said

that the statements were taken out

of context in many cases. In the

new emails, there are 5,000 emails,

and they place the older email in

context, so that where an email

would come one day, now you see the

whole chain. It seems to me that

what we are now saying context is

that there's a very tight group of

climate scientists - amazingly

tight and small - that are sort of

feeding a group-think, excluding

sceptics, and hiding even their own

doubts about climate theory from

the rest of the public?

Well, I agree with that. There's

certainly a lot of evidence that

behind closed doors, the scientists

are much more cautious in their

opinions than they are when they're

talking to the public. For example,

here is a read from one email

scientist, which says, "I don't

think we should be scared of

admitting that we just don't know,

if indeed we just don't know, which

I believe is a fair reflection of

the state of the science." So to

state boldly that the trends agree,

and therefore always will, is,

again, living in a fool's paradise.

Now, that reflects one particular

issue. But when they go to talk to

the public, they talk far more

certainly than behind closed doors.

Well, that's right. I think, for

example, scientist Tom Wigley,

Australian-born, who says there are

a number of dishonest results by

authors, and that a model, that you

expose, he acknowledged that a lot

of the stuff behind it was - may I

say it on a Sunday morning show -

was crap. This is not the message

that the public got? Certainly

isn't it. One of the problems that

came out of the last round of

Climategate was also that there

were rather ineffectual inquiries

into the situation. The tape that

Ted Pierce of the Guardian, a green

environmental writer - again, let

me read this. "The evidence of

scientists cutting cornerer,

playing down uncertainties and

covering their tracks by being

secretive with data suggests the

systemic problem of scientific

sloppiness, collusion, and endemic

conflicts of interest but not about

right fraud. Many scientists

believe they have to own up to

their house and put their house in

order." Unfortunately, that has not

happened. It should shake the faith

of a lot of people in what they are

being being told.

Is And that is the show. Thanks for

watching. Have your say by sending

on my blog. me an email here at Ten, or comment

Meet the Press is next with Paul

Bongiorno. Join us next