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.
Meet The Press -

View in ParlView

(generated from captions) This program is captioned live.

Meet The Press with Paul Bongiorno.

Good morning, welcome to Meet The

Press. Canon opposition leader who

trails the Prime Minister by 49

points in Newspoll and whose party

is back where it was nine mons ago,

16 points behind the government,

survive. They are the questions

facing Malcolm Turnbull, made the

more pointed when his colleague the more pointed when his colleague the

availability to lead. Shadow Treasurer signalled his

The only leadership I'm focussed on

The only leadership I'm focussed on

is the lack of leadership from

Kevin Rudd. REPORTER: Are you

looking over your shoulder? Not at

all, I'm always looking straight

ahead. Mr Joe Hockey on Radio 1 day,

tried to make up the rest. Malcolm

has my absolute, unqualified

support, he always has had that, he

continues to have that, he will

have that into future. I just say

to people the job I want is Wayne

Swan's job. I want to knock off

Wayne wp swan, he is the only guy I want to knock off.

The liberal ructions came at the

same time the Reserve Bank raised

interest rates in the belief

economic recovery is under way, a

view bolstered by falling

unemployment. It's only commonsense

to observe that if a rate is at a

50 year low, at some stage in the

50 year low, at some stage in the

future it does go up. That is the

point that Governor Stevens has

made repeatedly over recent times.

Liberal power broker and opposition

guest. Senate leader Nick Minchin is a

Later Australia should have a human

rights act, chairman of the

reviewing panel, Frank Brennan

joins us. What the papers are

reporting this Sunday October 10:

the sun Herald leads with the

yachting tragedy that claimed the

lives of two Sydney to Hobart

veterans "cruel sea" the headline,

wreckage of the yacht shockwave is

strewn along the NSW coast. A

yachts man and skipper were killed.

The opposition leader Malcolm

Turnbull tried to convince WA

Liberal Party delegates to accept

his proposal to negotiate and vote

on emissions trading this year. The

conference thumbed their noses at

him calling for negotiations but no

December. vote before comben Hagueen in

Let's welcome back to to the

programme, Nick Minchin, good

morning Senator. Good morning Paul.

That news out of the WA division of

the Liberal Party, where does that

leave the Shadow Cabinet? Well, the

Shadow Cabinet will take to the

joipblt party room next Sunday a

set of pretty rigorous amendments

to the government's emissions

trading legislation. I'm confident

the party room will support that

package of amendments and then

we'll go into bat to seek to amend

the bill according to those

amendments. I want to, go on, I'm

keen to hear what you have to say?

The western Australian Liberal

Party is really reflecting the view

we all share, that it's pretty

outrageous of the government to be

bringing this legislation back

before the Parliament just three

months after it was resoundingly

defeated in the Senate by 44 to 32.

There wasn't one non-government

Senator that supported this deeply

flawed legislation. And so we are

all of the view, we are united in

the view that the government is

being utterly political and cynical

in bringing this back, they should

not bring the legislation back,

they should wait until February

when we've seen the outcome of

Copenhagen and know more about the

US Congress and its position on

emissions trading. Going to the

amendments you will bring forward,

there was a suggestion coming from

of all people Wilson Tuckey who we

know is completely opposed to an ET

is, that if the amendments are

acceptable to a Liberal Party they

acceptable to a Liberal Party they

will virtually newter the ETS, no

signals to the polluters and compensation to consumers so

there's no signal out there on

carbon. Well, look, what we're

worried about is the effect of

Labor's scheme on Australian jobs,

Australian energy prices and the

competitiveness of Australian

industry. This is the problem with

legislating a scheme before you

know what the rest of the world is

doing, that's why we don't think

you should legislate it now, we

should wait until after Copenhagen,

if the government insists on

bringing this back and we all know

their cynical reasons for so doing,

then we want to move amendments

that amealor rate the worst effects

of the bill, and it is our job to

stand up for thoseers and

industries who will be worst

affected by this bill and we have

no shame in so doing, it is our

responsibility to do so. Malcolm

Turnbull has nailed his colours to

an ETS. Do you breefl that Malcolm

Turnbull will still be leading the

opposition by Christmas time or

will it be Joe Hockey or Tony

Abbott? Look, Paul, I didn't get up

to gossip about the liberal

leadership this morning. We elected

Malcolm Turnbull last year to lead

us to the next election and I

expect that he will do so. There is

no vacancy, there is no challenge,

Malcolm Turnbull is the leader, he

has our support and I certainly

endorse him to lead us to the next

election and suspect he will do so.

The chief agitator at least

publicly on the leadership and

climate change Wilson Tuckey had

this view of Joe Hockey as an

alternative. No I wouldn't vote for

Joe, Joe is part of the team that's

taken this view., if there was a

change, I say if there was were a

change of leader, I would expect to

be someone who would say the

Liberal Party and the Coalition

opposes an emissions trading scheme

as the solution to climate change.

Now, we know that Joe Hockey shares

the views of Malcolm Turnbull, that

an ET is needed. Malcolm Turnbull

says if Labor's ETS goes down, he

will take his ETS to the next

election, but it would seem if he's

not the leader, the Liberals will

have to abandon an ETS completely?

Well, Paul, there is no challenge,

Joe's not challenging, nobody else

is challenging. The Liberal Party

room and the Coalition party room

are the arc terbgts of our policy,

the policy that we have is that an

emissions trading scheme is the

appropriate response, but we always

believed it should be in concert

with other countries, should

reflegt what other countries are

doing, that it is crazy for

Australia to act so unilaterally is

all we do is damage Australian

industry, cost Australian jobs and

do zilch for the climate, Australia

is respobsability for 1. 4% of

emissions, nothing we do on our own

will make a lot of difference and

that motivates a lolt of liberals.

There's no doubt ETS is very

divisive for the non-Labor side of

politics, you're a political hard

head f you don't mind me saying,

isn't Malcolm Turnbull right, that

it would be better to have is vote,

get it off the agenda, go into the

New Year fighting on deficit and

the economy? Well, certainly we

think the most significant issue

facing this country is Labor's

record spending which as the head

of the Treasury has already said

will inevitably mean higher taxes

and cuts in government spending to an extent... That wouldn't

otherwise have been the case. Good

argument,, it's not by your

divisions on ETS? But the point is

Paul that the government is

intending to impose on raus trail

ya one of the most radical

interventions by a government in

the economy we've ever seen, with

significant damage to the economy.

Look, we can't just stand by and

watch that happen. We are

legislators we have a significant

role in the Senate, we don't

control it, but have a role, it is

our job to fight to protect jobs and protect Australian industry

against what we see as the ravages

of Labor's scheme. When we return

with the panel, the Treasury

secretary warns of job losss if the

stimulus is wound back too early t

opposition not convinced and to be

opposition leader you need broad

shoulders and a thick hide, not my prescription, Mr Turnbull's under fire.

REPORTER: Do you have the support

of the party room? Yes, absolutely,

and I have the support of the whole

party room, so we're in very good

shape, don't worry about it.

REPORTER: Does it surprise you that

Joe Hockey's been approached? Well, he's very approachable.

You're on Meet The Press with

opposition Senate leader Nick

Minchin and welcome o the panel,

Louise Dodson the Australian

Financial Review, good morning

Louise, and Peter Van Osnlen the

Australian morning. And Malcolm

doesn't seem able to take a trick,

in April he claimed the

government's expensive 42 billion

package did not create one job.

Unemployment statistics last week

undermined that claim, and the

secretary of the Treasury on Friday

still has the opposition leader on

the wrong side of the argument.

If you withdrew all the stimulus

right away and all of the stimulus

right away, yes, we would consider

that the increase in unemployed

would be of that order of 100,000

jobs, it could quite possibly be

more than that. Senator Nick

Minchin, the opposition called for

withdrawing the stimulus spending,

spblt it better to, as Ken Henry

said, keep those people, 100,000

Australians in jobs rather than

withdraw the stimulus spending?

Well, hang on a minute, Louise,

what Dr Henry said then that if you

withdrew all of the stimulus right

away, well, the opposition has

never argued that case. We've never

said crease the stimulus straight

away. So 30,000 people out of work

is okay? Rather than 100,000? We

always supported the proposition

that fiscal stimulus is required in

these circumstances, but it's got

to be very well targeted, and

focussed on productive investment,

most particularly, and all we're

talking about is a gradual wind

down in the additional stimulus in

the light of the fact that the

Australian economy is showing the

sort of resilience we spent 12 years

years building into the Australian

economy. The reality is that the

more you keep the legal of stimulus

going in the way the government is,

then the more pressure you have on

interest rates and the higher you

put up interest rates, then you

have this counter veiling effect

and you have monetary and fiscal

policy conflicting with each other,

it's inevitable that the higher

interest rates are pushed by higher

fiscal policy, then you have a Del tearious effect on employment

itself. So we're talking about a

gradual winding back of the

stimulus, so that you reduce the

pressure on interest rates and

reduce the pressure on future

levels of taxation which Dr Henry

himself said will be higher than

what would otherwise be the case

because of the excessive stimulus

we believe is in place. But

business groups don't like tax or

interest rate hikes, and they want

the stimulus spending. So are they

wrong? Well, we want stimulus

spending as well, but not the

kiepbld of wasteful stimulus

spending that this government is

responsible for, I would also point

you to the comments of Dr Ross

Garno the government's favourite

climate change economist; who has climate change economist; who has

written extensively of his grave

concerns about the extent of

wasteful government spending and ef

the effect that will have on the

economy this years to come. Senator

t apart from the ETSt other bill up

before the Parliament is the

government's Tilco reform bill. You

stood up for the 1. 4 million

shareholders in your comments,

isn't the bill many the interests

of 21 million Australians, why

wouldn't you support it for that

reason? I don't think this bill is,

and I think a bit like the ETS,

this bill should not be rushed

through the Parliament in the three through the Parliament in the three

weeks remaining for the Senate this

year, two of which will be devoted

to climate change, this government

is proposing to push the most

radical changes to Australian

telecommunications through the

Parliament in effectively four days,

it is outrageous. The government is in

in negotiations with Telstra over

how to build this 43 billion dollar

national broad band network, the

bill should be set aside while

those negotiations take place, the

government and we all know that

this NBN can't be built would

without the co-operation of Telstra,

they should take away the gun from

their head, negotiate in good faith

with Telstra, try to again the gun

off the table. And they're proposing legislative blackmail,

the results of which and the

results will be I think

disadvantageous to the 22 million

that we have on Australians that

rely on Telstra for the back bone

for instra structure in

telecommunications. Do you think

the coalition is troo driven by the

interests of 1. 4 million

shareholders, given it was the

Coalition in government in the

Howard years that privatised

Telstra and actually created those

shareholders? We certainly think

the government should be much more

mindful o of the interests of all

those mum and dad shareholders,

it's many more millions of

Australians than the 1. 4 million

dregt shareholders, everyone with a

superfund has an interest in

Telstra and every Australian as a

taxpayer has an interest because of

a future funds holding in Telstra,

we all have a stake in this, and

the fact is Telstra provides the

back bone of our telecommunications

and no-one knows the consequences

of breaking up the company and what

that will do to Australian

telecommunications, I think it will

be very severe for people living in

rural and regional Australia who

rely to a considerable extent on

Telstra and breaking up the company

and the effect that has on

investment in telecommunications I

think could be quite severe, Labor

has no mandate to break up Telstra,

this is a radical policy designed

to prop up their government-owned

new monopoly provided of wholesale

fixed line services. Senator Rudd

going back to the hot issue, the

ETS, Peter Costello aerks for a

delay on the ETS voter as you do,

but then goes on to point out there

will never be a time when an

international scheme is set in

concrete. Let's not sit around and

work ourselves up into a later

about the form of this scheme in

November, because whatever the form

of this scheme in November, it

won't be the form of the scheme in

2011, 2012, let alone 2030, 2040 or

2050. Senator Nick Minchin, what's

wrong with passing the legislation

and amending it later. Well, it

seems ridiculous to lock in

legislation to prescribe this

scheme now, right on the eve of

Copenhagen. I mean, why not wait

until February when we do know what

the outcome of Copenhagen is, what

commitments other countries are

making? And frankly until we know

what the US Congress will do, the

country responsible for the most

CO2 emissions, I think it's

ridiculous and commonsense tells

you it's ridiculous to formally

legislate is a scheme for Australia

and then have to go back to the

Parliament and change it. That is

ridiculous, the government can wait

until February and should wait

until February. If you can't bring

your troops to one position now,

are you going to be able to at any

later stage, don't you really need

a deadline to focus the mind on

emissions trading, if you in fact

are in favour of such a scheme?

Well, we're in favour of an

emissions trading scheme, because

we understand that that is the way

the world is going to deal with

carbon emissions and you can't deal

with CO2 emissions unless you act

in concert with other countries,

because we're all responsible for

this, and no-one country acting

alone can have any effect on the

climate. Therefore it does require

international action and that is

why emissions trading is favoured

but until we see the shape of the

United States' scheme and the United States' scheme and the

commitments made by other major

emiters, given that we are

responsible for only 1. 4% of responsible for only 1. 4% of

emissions, it is crazy to lock in

an Australian scheme in legislation,

knowing that it will inevitably

have to be changed, but, so why not

wait until February until we zoo

see the outcome in the US and in

Copenhagen? Plenty of colour and

movement left in this issue, thank

you very much for being with us,

Senator Nick Minchin. My pleasure

Paul. Coming up the comair of the

human rights consultation panel, Frank Brennan.

And after keeping everyone guessing, And after keeping everyone guessing,

former treasurer Peter Costello is

finally quitting Parliament.

Cartoonist Nicholson in the

Australian sees him deserting a

sinking ship with captain Turner at

the helm - Bonn voyage!

so come in and get your place looking great. Homelite blower vac, $59.90. Four-burner barbecue, $145. Laserlite roofing, $12.90 per metre. SONG: # Bunnings Warehouse! # Lowest prices are just the beginning.

You're on Meet The Press. The Rudd

government commissioned a Jesuit government commissioned a Jesuit

priest and lawyer Frank Brennan to priest and lawyer Frank Brennan to

head a human rights consultation

panel almost a year ago. On panel almost a year ago. On

Thursday Father Brennan handed over

the report with 31 recommendations the report with 31 recommendations

including its call for a human

rights act and the ability of the

courts to scrutinise legislation courts to scrutinise legislation

for incompatibility with our for incompatibility with our

international obligations. This is

a fundamental rebalancing of the

constitution away from the elected

arls of government, that is the

Parliament and Executive Council Parliament and Executive Council

government towards the unelected

arm of government the judiciary and

should not proceed without the should not proceed without the

people's consent. And welcome to

the programme, Father Brennan. Good

morning frank. Good morning Paul,

good to be with you. When you saw

George Brangelina the shadow

Attorney-General, he says your

scheme is a reshaping of the

constitution and should go to

referendum? Well, let me say two

things other half of our report is

not to do with the Human Rights Act

at all of course, it looks serious

at suggestions that Senator Brandis

himself put forward, we were

grateful to deal with a dereport

from the opposition, naming there

should be an audit from the

commonation legislation to ensure

compliance with intermagsal

instruments that Australia has

voluntarily signed up to and second

there, importantly, there is a need

for better skuet anyby our

sovereign Parliament of any

proposed future laws, so we

focussed on those issues as well as

the need for education and a better

culture in the public service for

human rights, but coming to the

issue of controversy for Senator

Brandis, yes, the overwhelming

percentage of people from whom we

heard said they wanted a Human

Rights Act, one that went one step

further, that would do really two

things: one allow judges to

interpret Commonwealth laws

consistent with human rights and

second, if a citizen thought that a Commonwealth public authority was

breaching their rights, they would

have a cause of action in the

courts. So that's the issue of

controversy. That's a matter for

resolution for Parliament, not of resolution for Parliament, not of

course referendum, we're not

talking about a constitution, if we

respect the sovereignty of

Parliament, we let Parliament work

these things out. Father Brennan these things out. Father Brennan

speaking of the sovereignty of

pailt, polls show that

disillusionment is increasing in

the modern era amongst voters, do

you think more judicial activism,

which is what you're looking at,

might make them more disillusioned by taking power away from

Parliament and putting it in the

hands of unelected judges. We hear

a lot about unelected judges and

this disillusionment peetser but

weed and victor yand and the ACT

that has legislation of this sort,

we vpblt seen anything of that. New

Zealand have had such an act for 20

years, there's no no

disillusionment of that sort, the

United Kingdom has had this

provision for ten years, we heard

from distinguished Law Lords like

Lord Bingham, we know that is

basically unfoupbl founded.

Following on from that George

Brandis described it the ultimate

triumph of the elite, do you accept

that? I don't accept it, with all

respect to Senator Brandis, in, I

think without blowing the trumpet

of our consultation, we had over

6,000 people turn up at community

round tables everywhere from Chris

Mall island, to Cooper peeddy, to

Alice strings, palm isle, Thursday

island, they're not elites and then

we had over 35,000 submissions and

I can tell you some of them are

written by very ordinary people and

some might think a little eccentric,

think we heard from quite a cross

section of the Australian community.

But Father Brennan the government

doesn't seem to have warmly embraced the report's

government recommendations, do you think the

government might especially for a

Human Rights Act, do you think the

government might self that part of

it? It may, it may not, I don't

think you can say that the

government hasn't been warm. I

think the government has acted

rather well, if I may say, we

presented them with a 500 page

report on the 30th of September and

there was the Attorney-General

publishing for the public 8 days

later, saying that yes, we will

have a very detailed consideration

of this. But he was hardly

committing to taking it up. But

that's not his task, at this stage,

is it? Within a democracy such as

Australia, what's first of all

necessary, particularly as many of

these recommendations are quite

technical, about the working of the

Commonwealth bureaucracy, about

what you do with setting up a

parliamentary committee of human

rights, how you would look at the

relationship between the executive

and Parliament, I would have thought the very responsible thing to

to do is to have very detailed discussions now within government

about those matters. I must say

from what I've hear; I'm quite

heartened the government is

committed to a very resourced

reflection on our report, rather

than just to hold us, rejection on

day one. These are difficult

financial times, so what sort of

resourceing, would you like to see

a doubling of Legal Aid funding or?

One of the issues raised in our

reports, is one of the

recommendations is access to

justice, but the Attorney-General's

department has had a separate

inquiry on that recently, we were

not resourced to make that inquiry,

and so what we are focussing on is

not questions like access to Legal

Aid, rather we were focussing on

the sort of architecture you need

within the nation state now to have

enhanced protection of humans, our

argument is if the system is

working well, it's not that people

will end up in the courts, it's the

public servants in places like

centre link will on more your human

rights and ensure there won't be a

need for litigation. And father,

we're just about out of time, what

will human rights act prevent in

the future, women and children

being held in detention in the

desert? I can't say it will

definitively do that Paul, because

of the sovereignty of Parliament.

Parliament may legislate to do that

again, but if they did, there would

be a parliamentary inquiry first to

say, hang on this interferes with

the basic human rights of these

children, but we the Parliament

have decided it's in the national

interest to do so, now I would hope

we live in a country where they

wouldn't happen again, but if we

have a provision which ensures that

there can be proper inquiry, then I

think the Australian public can be

better served, including minorities,

like children who have suffered

pyschiatric results in these

detention centres. Thank you very

much for being with us, Frank

Brennan. Thank you to our panel,

Louise Dodson and Peter Van Onsolon.

A transcript will be on the web,

until next week, goodbye.

This program is captioned live. yourself against swine flu, more Today on State Focus, safeguarding look at surviving a job interview. flower power from Canberra and a to hit the Aussie music scene, Plus, one of the most exciting bands the show. Rushcutter join us a little later in State Focus, great to have your the world's funniest fellows. company. First today, he's one of back in Oz for a national tour and Award-winning comedian Arj Barker is from Wagga to Wollongong. has set a few dates with the folks Sunday morning and joins us now. He's a sight for sore eyes on a G'day Arj welcome back to Australia. thanks for not letting me sleep in. Thanks Peta, nice to be here, on a Sunday morning? What time would you normally get up