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.
7.30 Report -

View in ParlViewView other Segments

(generated from captions) Now we've had a couple light frosts, don't be Now we've had a couple of

surprised if you see some unusual flowering, and this flower, it's an early chrysanthemum. Great, thank you for that, Mark. Before we go, a brief recap of our top Government is locked

Wales over health funding. Sydney pays for a number The Chief Minister says patients seen in Canberra, but

Territory's out of pocket some The Chief Minister says the

$30 million. And Victoria's former police chief Christine Nixon has deliberately misled Nixon has denied she

avoid embarrassment. Bushfires Royal Commission to

previously claimed she didn't avoid embarrassment. Ms Nixon

Minister as the disaster speak to the Emergency Services

unfolded, but phone records reveal she spoke to him three times, and she said she hadn't to dinner on told the inquiry she went out

Black Saturday, because she to dinner on the evening of didn't think it was That's ABC News. Stay with didn't think it was relevant. for the 7.30 Report coming That's ABC News. Stay with us

next. Of course you the latest headlines 24 hours a next. Of course you can find

day at ABC back with day at ABC Online. I will be the evening. Thanks for your company. Goodnight.

coming tonight from Welcome to the program,

coming tonight from Washington

where I'm scheduled to intish

view US President Barack Obama at the White House at the Whit

For the past two days, the

President has been hosting a

summit of 49 nations, including

Australia to discuss Australia to discuss nuclear

terrorism. The issue he

describes as America's biggest

short and single threat, both in the

short and long term. The

President sought and gained a

committedment for individual

nations to lock up for the next

four years the poorly guarded fissile materials that litter

the world to avoid the

catastrophe that he says looms

if extremist groups ever manage

to build a nuclear bomb. The

two most un predictable nations

with regard to nuclear ambition

s - North Korea and Iran -

weren't invited. In a press

conference following the summit today, President Obama once conference following the summit

again talked of a day when the

world might be rid of all

nuclear weapons. A very long

journey indeed. In a moment, I

will be talking with

Washington, Kim Beazley, but Australia's ambassador to

first the ABC's North America correspondent Michael

Brissenden has been following

the talks for this year. -

for this report.

The threat of a nuclear

Armageddon has been with us now

for 65 years. From the moment

of the first successful weapons

test, the world changed

forever. At the dawn of the

nuclear age that he helped to

unleash, Albert Einstein said,

"Now everything has changed."

And he warned we are drifting

towards a catastrophe beyond towards a catastrophe beyond

comparison. We shall require a

substantially new manner of

thinking if mankind is to

survive. But from this

distance the old soorp power

fuelled cold war arms race that

dominated much of the 20th

century looks frightening but

relative ly predictable. As

time goes on and technology

improve, the nuclear paradigm

has become increasingly complex. Now, complex. Now, nine countries

have nuclear weapons. 38 others

store or produce enriched

uranium. And everyone is well

aware of what Barack Obama

calls the true irony of

history. The risk of a nuclear history. Thlear confronta confrontation between nations

has gone down. But the risk of

nuclear attack has gone up. The

nuclear security nuclear security summit, called

by President President Obama,

is the largest gathering of

foreign leaders in US since the

dawn of the atomic age in 1945.

It's designed to build on his

pledge to deal with what he

says is the single biggest

threat to US and global

security in the 21st century -

nuclear terrorism. Terrorist

networks such as al-Qaida have

tried to acquire the material

for a nuclear weapon and, if for a nuclear weapon and, if

they ever succeeded, they

should surely use it. As the

leaders retired for closed door

sessions, another conference of

experts and analysts was across town engaged in serious

discussion of its own. The discussion of its own. Theuation

situation in Iran has

concentrated everyone's minds - Australia's former Foreign

Minister Gareth Evans gave one

of the key note addresses to a

roomful of experts consumed

with the technical and security challenge s posed challenge s posed by the new

nuclear par am terse. Overall,

the situation is as dangerous

as it's ever been been. You not

only have tinuing stock p only have this huge continuing

stock piles in the major

countries. You not only have countries. You not only

2,000 weapons still on very

high alert but you have rather

weak command and control

systems. You have the risk of

terrorists getting a hold of

in Washington is about this stuff which is what this summit

week. You've got the risk of

game new players coming into the

game and risk s associated with

civil nuclear power and the

possible explosion of activity possible explosion of

in that area. All of these

things add up to a scale of

risk that simply defies

complacency. This just isn't an

old cold war problem which we

should have long ago for gotten

about. This is a contemporary

issue. And on this issue amongst among this crowd there

this is a serious aish this is a serious aish issue: I

think what 9-11 told people is

you don't know what's being

planned by hind closed doors.

You won't find about it untill

the last minute. The cost of

prevention will be far, far

less than the cost of

response. The technical

barriers that any terrorist

organisation, like al-Qaida,

would have to overcome, he would have to overcome, he

says, are not insurmountable.

All they'd need to do is secure

enough highly en - enriched

uranium. Since 1993, weapons

grade uranium has been stolen

88 times. We've been lucky to

escape an act of nuclear

terrorism up to this point. With've been working terrorism up to this

with Russia and the former Soviet States to Soviet States to try to plok up

that stock pile which has been

the number one objective but

we're now focussed globally and

there are places that are civilian operations that civilian operations that are

not on military reservations

that have significant amount of

this material. And I think that

we have in part been lucky but

I don't think we should press

our luck. Barack Obama has been

the driving force behind this

renewed focus on global nuclear renewed focus on global nuclear

security. He first produce ed

this deadline in his election

campaign and this summit is a

significant step towards that

ambitious goal. I said this ambitious gs morning morning that today would morning an opportunity

opportunity for our nations,

both individually and

collectively, to make concrete

commitments and take tangible commitments and take tangip to step to secure nuclear

materials so they never fall

into the hands of terrorists

who would surely use them. who would surely use them. This

evening I can report we have

seized this opportunity. Some

had feared this summit would

produce little more than

another group photo and a

formal statement of good

intent. Be tu meeting has

produced some real out

comes. The former Soviet

Republic of Ukraine has

announced it will get rid of

all its stockpile of highly

enriched uranium by 2012. Russia has said Russia has said it will close

its last weapons-grade

plutonium reactor. The

President of the people's

Republic of China. And China

has announced it will work with

the US to establish sanctions

against Iran to discourage that country from developing country from developing a nuclear weapons

program. Neither Iran nor

North Korea was invited to

attends. It is important for us to send a

to send a strong signaltory to send a strong signaltory ran

that their consistent violation

of United Nations Security

Council resolutions, as well as

their obligations under the

MPT, - NPT have consequences - consequence and they have a consequencea better pa

better path to take. All the

participants have endorsed

President Obama's goal of

securing the world's nuclear

materials within four years.

And many have made specific promises to change promises to change the way

nuclear materials are handled. This nuclear security

summit comes just a week after

President Obama's announcement

of a new nuclear posture review

for the United States. And for the United States. And the

signing of a new missile

reduction, or START treaty with

Russia. Even the critics think

he has done pretty well so far: I

far: I think the President has

succeeded in getting all party,

both his detractors an

supporter, focussed on the

prospect of the United States

and other countries coming down

and not relying as much upon

large numbers of nuclear

weapons. And tightening nuclear

controls for the spread of controls for the spread of the technology that could be used

to make bombs. He's to make bombs. He's done a very

good job on good job on that. Henry has

been a senior figure involved

in many of the

neuronegotiations conducted by recent Republican ad mission d

- administrations but he is one

who believes there's a lot more

to be done upon simply securing

the stockpiles of those

continuesries willing to agree

to new international frameworks and treaties. It is

and treaties. It is the

countries that won't sign up that pose the that pose the real future

challenge, he says. It seems

to me that you need to have

something more than, say, something going to bring the

comprehensive test ban treaty

which would ban nuclear testing

into force and we plan to

negotiate a treaty that would

ban the production of highly

enriched plutonium and make

bombs and bring it into force.

Why? Those efforts could only Why? Those efforts could only

come into force if North Korea,

Iran, Egypt, India and Pakistan

ratified them. I don't want toem. I

say it won't ever happen but

that could take a few

weeks. Brissenden bis with that report. Australia's ambassador

to the US, the former Labor

leader Kim Beazley, has been

attending the summit with Defence Minister John Faulkner.

And I spoke with him here in Washington

Washington tonight. Kim

Beazley, what is your take on

the summit? Very effectively

organised. A very good

outcome. It shows that the

President at the moment on the

top of his game. Focussed on

some - all the security issues some - all the security ist American

that Americans are concerned

about, but dealing with it in about, but dealing with it manageabl manageable slices. One thing

after another. And the slice

today was the threat today was the threat of nuclear

terrorism. He came up with a

very good work program, a very

forward leaning statement forward leaning statement at

the conclusion of the

conference. And a lot of people

from around the world reporting

in good things they are doing

to secure nuclear materials

making sure they don't fall

into the hands of

terrorists. So what are some of

the indiations, - - indication, some of the examples of some of the I that? You

that? You had for example the u

crane say ing tsh - crane say ing tsh - Ukraine

saying it was give up its

highly enriched uranium. You

had the Russians agreed on

getting rid of large stocks of

the same. The Russians say Iing

they're going to shut down the

one reactor which is producing

employee tonium grade - weapons grade

grade plutonium. You've got

the Indians coming out talking about creating global research

centres to im governance. In

this area. So just one after

another, if everybody brought

something to the table, it was

quite impressive. Even more

impressive than that - and that

was impressive enough - was the

prepareedness to accept the American suggestion of American suggestion of what was

a principal terrorist threat at a principal terrorist three

face value, not to nibble

around the edges but say, "Fair

enough, whether you agree it's

immediate or long term, no

question at all, the nuclear

weapon spell into the hands of

a terrorist they would use it

and massive devastation would

result." So it is a fair enough thing for us to come to the

table, prepared to accept a

level of international

governance here and comply with

it in our internal laws. Is

there a practical role for

Australia in all this? We have

already played a substantial

roll in this. The work that -

role in this. The work done role in this. The work done by

Gareth Evan s set up by Kevin Rudd has laid a lot of the

groundwork of things that must be considered be considered in the nuclear

control policy. And more recently the American nuclear

posture review came out for posture review came out for the

time with an ultimate objective

of disarmament, and for the

first time without secret coded

cres so you know what cres so you know what the United States thinks officially about nuclear weapons and

there's a lot of co incidence

and language and proposition

onds directions between the exercise that Australia exercise that Australia set

running, if you like, or the

Australian Government set

running, and what has

transpired in that review and

things that were discussed today. The President can claim

a win of sorts, a win of sorts, with countries

a agrees to this four-year a agrees to this four-year time

table. I wonder what the

agreement is worth when you

look at the individual

countries and break it down.

What you just outlined on the surface surface sounds impressive but

you take a country like China

this's criticise for a lack this's criticise for a lack of

transparency. So whatever China

says it is going to do you have

to take with it a degree of

trust. I would take a country

on trust. This is not the most

complex part of the

anti-terrorism agenda. Nobody

in their right mind is going to

get out there and say ing I am not going to secure not going to secure my nuclear

materials, or say I don't think

they should be subject to they sho inspection, I

inspection, I think it would be

a really good thing if a

terrorist got their hand on a

nuclear weapon. In one sense

this is a no brainer but somebody has to bell the somebody has to bell the cat

and somebody has to say we no

it's a no brainer but what do

you do about it? This has come

as close to saying sensible

things about what needs to be things about what needs to be

done about it and proposing a done about g a course

course of action that is

achievable. And you'd have to

say that politicians are good

at hyperbole. But when Obama

said he wanted these things

secured within four years an secured within four years an he

said it a year ago, take a look

at the working plan and the

response to the various

country, he will probably a it. This - it. This - achieve it. This is

the biggest summit hosted by

the biggest summit hosted by an American President in more than

60 years. President Hu from

China, President Medvedev from

Russia, were there, Russia, were there, amongst others. Should Kevin Rudd have

been there? I must say from me

being there the point of view

of being an ambassador it was a

little awesome, I have to

say. I got out of the habits of international arrangements. I

don't think that you'd get

Kevin Rudd saying he wouldn't

want to be there. Kevin Rudd

would have loved to have be

there and the Americans would

have loved to have had him. As

it turns out the role he needed

to play on in he had already

played. We didn't know that a

week or two ago but we know it now. Defence Minister John

Faulkner met US Defense Secretary Robert Gates

yesterday: I assume Afghanistan yesterday: I assume Afghanistan

was convased. Are the Americans

still keen for a bigger

Australian troop commitment or more combat-focussed role for

Australian troops? I think John Australian troops? I thinklkner is

Faulkner is the right person to

replace the Prime Minister.

Nuclear weapons, our US

relationship, enforcement of

nuclear relations that abide in

the Department of Defence. the Department of Defence.

Foreign affairs handles arms

control matter. There's a lot

more that was practical about

this sort of conference. So he

was the right man and he was in the right place at the right the right place at the right so

time because he needed a

conversation with Robert Gates

on where we're going with

Afghanistan F you look at the

Dutch and what's going on in

their election campaign, they

will reach a position whereby

the ends of the year they will

be gone. It gave John Faulkner be gone. It gave John Faulkner

an opportunity, I think, to lay

out to the United States the

very considerable changes that

have been made in the

Australian posture for fixing

up the consequences of that

from our end. So the additional

can dex that we're training in one now Candex? That's

battalions. We're going to end battalions. We're going to end

up training the combat support

element, the artillery and the

like. In Afghanistan? In

Afghanistan, in this group.

This group hassise news onned

by - announced by Senator

Fawkner a couple of weeks ago

will be capable of defend ing

itself out to writ needs to

defend itself, whether that's

immediately in the boundaries

or just over them. The

Americans are completely cheerful about all of

cheerful about all of this. And

in addition the Dutch are doing an absolutely fabulous work

with ly yoison, with the plieb

- liaison and with if tribes in Uruzgan and with coordination

already substantial of the oid effort. We are

contributors to the aid effort, particularly our military

England years an the like,

Australia has announced it is

going to in-Reece the civilian component and component and substantially

increase the police component.

That in part makes up for what

may be lost in regard to the

Dutch wining down their Dutch winin engagem

engagement. Are you saying that

the Americans - when you say

they're cheerful, you're saying

that there is no sense of an

American mood that feels Australia could do

fair more? No. Australia's done a

fair bit more. They fully

comprehend we're engaged

elsewhere. And that the heavy

focus in Australian defence

spending in the long term is

maritime, not counter

insurgency. So the Americans

understand that we're contributing heavily. The ball

is really in their court.

They've got to work out how

they are just deal with the

Dutch ultimately go down the

road there that they road there I apparent road there that they 50

apparent ly going down, how

they support the enablers. When

President Obama does visit

Australia, what are the issues

that you would isolate that are

the trickest issue force the the trickes the relatio

relationshihat need relationship, the issues that

need the most work? Not too.

Many to be frank. We're on major commitments like Many to be frank. We're on the

Afghanistan we're seeing eye

Afghanistan we're seeing eye to

eye . It would be a question of

how do we properly reflect the

character of the relationship

as it is now in the sorts of

agreements that are struck? I

think there would be areas of

education, environment, things

like clean coal, all like clean coal, all these

sorts of issues which are

issues out there which we're

both dealing with, given that

there's quite a co incidence of there's quite a co incidence of

perspectives between the way

Kevin Rudd see s the world and

the way President Obama seeing

the world. How do you put flesh

on that? I think the challenge on that? I enge is

is to put flesh on that type of

common approach, which goes

yornd the attitudinal into the

yornd the attitudinal inractical. On

practical. On a personal note,

I notice that you've broken

free of the clutches of the

wheelchair. This must have been

wheelchair. This must have been an incredible painful

introduction to diplomacy for

you? Very painful. Very useful

for representational purposes I

have to say. When I got out of

the wheelchair, the deputy

chief of mission says

chief of mission says you've

got to get back in. We've never

had access like we've had in

Congress. They they want me

back into it! Kim Beazley, thanks for talking with

us. Good to be with you. Also us. Good to be with you. Also in Washington, the State Department has raised concerns

over the Rudd Government's

fillering legislation. The $120

million cyber safety policy

would force Internet providers

to block websites deemed to be

carrying offensive material but

this week the US am boss dar

this week the US am boss dar to Australia has argued the Internet should be free and

there are other ways to combat content like child content like child pornography.

The industry giant Google has

weighed, in criticising the

exercise as heavy handed,

warning it would legitimate

regimes like China sensoring

the budge. The Government is

not budging, saying the

allegations are misguided.

Kirstin Murray reports. It's

just every high school student

knows this how. Now - this

now. Many who have come to now. Many who have come to this

community hall are still

learning how to use a

computer. U but if all goes to

plan by the end of this

workshop each senior citizens

will have mastered how to hack

a compute tore side step the

law. This is not going to seed

how the Government is planning

to keep you in the dark. Armed

with computer engineers with computer engineers and Philip Nitschke is travelling

the country to teach followers

how to get around the how to get I Governmen Government's proposed Internet

filter: These guys are not very

technically skilled. A lot of

them barely know how to turn on

a computer by am confident that

over 90% of them now can walk

straight through this filter.

It makes me very happy. If the

Government is successful, sites like The Peaceful Pill will be like The be deenled

deenled illegal, refused classification classification and blocked from

Australian computers. It's

part of the plan to make the

web for family friendly and

it's just what's needed,

according to the Australian

Christian Lobby. At the moment

we have an Internet which is

full, it's also a full, it's also a cesspool.

Violence and sex, children are

degraded, women are de grade.

Within that is a lot of Within that is a lot of illegal

material. But what was an

election promise has created a

massive backlash. The

governments propotion the

filtering we view as y handed:

Heavy handed there's a

scheme that will create the

infrastructure for government

censorship on a broader

scale. I think it's a political

exercise to show that the Government is Government is concerned.

There's a huge problem There's a huge problem in

apply ing media content

regulation that was developed

where we had a very narrow

point of purchase, or

distribution, to an environment

like the Internet. Compared to

other Australian media, the

Internet remains largely unregulated. Communications

Minister Stephen Conroy says

the Government simply wants to

apply laws from the real world to the virtual. Last to the virtual. Last time I

looked into this debate, the

civil Society did not equate to

the Wild West completely un regulated, anything regulated, anything goes.

It's content like this that

would be black listed: Here gairms earn point force stalk

and raping young women. This

is all that can be shown as is all that can be shown as

more graphic material is already banned from

television It's material like

pro-rape website, bestiality,

child pornography,

glorification of crime, glorificati I terrorist

terrorist promotion. This

material is so damaging. One

viewing could scar an individual permanently. What

was your response when you view

ed this kind of material? I

have not viewed it because you're

you're not allowed. To I have

had some of it described to me

and I still havage image in my

mind of what was described to

me and it is nearly a year

since this was described to

me. It's a little like saying

with let's put a road block

across-the main road when the

child pornographer s are

bringing in their illegal

content via helicopter and boat. Steven works

boat. Steven works for iiNet,

one of the services that would

be used to filter. Anyone

wanting to access blocks sites,

he says, can easily do. So It's

pointless. Child pornography is

not posted on public websites. not posted on public websi

The suggestion that ISPs will

filter general public websites filter geneites and have

and have an and have an impact on the trade

in that sort of illegal content

is just a nonsense. The krn we

have with this is parents may

believe or understand that the Government's filter will

actually block out all the bad

stuff on the enterthereby giving the parents a false

sense of security that maybe they don't need to be so

vigilant with what their kids

do online. That would be a

do online. That would be a very yong outcome here. What yong outcome here. What will

instead be picked bip the felt

ser politically and socially

sensitive websites, sensitive websites, warns communications academic

Catharine Lumby. She's Cathar Catharine Lumby. She's analysed

what the felter might

block. There are public

interest reason, clear public

interest reason force people to

have access to information

about brutality and demonstrations politically.

There are good public interest

reasons to allow young people

in a safe social networking

environment to discuss their

sexuality and their sexual

practice. There are good public

health interest reasons to have

harm minimisation websites

around drug use. The Government

has to look very clearly at the

motivation of the people opposing this. In the main it

is people like the sex industry who have said they will go

broke in five years if that

coming in. It's people who have either either a pecuniary interest

like that or an ideological interest like civil

libertarians who don't want

regulation of anything. The

filter we are talking about is

a complaints-based mechanism.

It is not that we are filt terg

entire Internet and lets

Australians see what we have im

approved. Stephen Conroy says

while the list of banned websites

websites won't be secret, it

won't be made public. That But Google says

the Government's treading a

fine line with the mandatory

model it's chosen, and warn s

Australia's actions are being

closely watched by others. Non-democratic regimes

would point to Australia's

system as somewhat legitimising

their own censorship efforts. That would be unfortunate

because Australia is seen because Australia is seen in

the Asia Pacific region as a

country that provides country that provides leader

sh. But Australia's approach is

being debated much further a

board. We stand for a single

Internet where all of humanity has equal access to knowledge

and ideas. We've been very

clear, the Internet needs to be clear, the Internet needs to be

free, we have said skies have

to be free, the polar cap s

have to be free, they have to

be shared. They're shared

resource of all the people of

the world. Did you expect to

come up against so much criticism? We as criticism? We as a sovereign

Government are not going to

allow large multinational

corporations or foreign

governments to determine what should be in

should be in our refused

classification category. Google

signed a contract with China to do censorship. They signed a

contract to do that. In

Thailand Google have agreed to

filter any criticism of the

Thai Royal family. What's that

about? So Google want to talk

about legitimising censorship

in other countries they should

have a look in the mirror. At that point is the point that

the Government proposing the

mandatory filter comes in. With

legislation still being

drafted, Stephen Conroy's

unlikely to get his bill debated in Parliament before

the election. But in the public

arena, debate is off and

running People are entitled to

have that information. That's a

different thing from things

like child pornography and so

on. The Government needs to get everything

everything else right, leave

old people alone, leave old people alone, leave senior citizens alone. They're citizens alone. They're not

doing any harm. So even if the

filt ser introduced, this work

shop has shown those who want

to get around it can and

will. Kirstin Murray with that

report and that's the program

for tonight. Join us tomorrow

for a 7:30 Report special - a

White House interview with US

President Barack Obama. Until then, goodnight from

Washington. Close

Closed Captions by CSI Offer

THEME MUSIC

'Tonight on The New Inventors, can power your TV. how the heat of the earth No, it's a slingshot. Is it a bike, is it a car? will be terrified of.' And an invention old floorboards

APPLAUSE G'day, I'm James O'Loghlin. Also tonight, a 95-year-old man his friend on the bowling green. who invented something to keep yet down-to-earth judges. First, our high-tech and inventor Sally Dominguez, Tonight they are designer Richard Vaughan, woodworker and teacher, Veena Sahajwalla. and engineering professor APPLAUSE and it's good for you, Riding a bike is fun and more comfy, but driving a car is faster that was fun and good for you so what if there was something and also fast and comfy.

I'm a big fan of the bicycle.

and easy to use, 'It's efficient, it's economical hills are high and legs are tired. but sometimes roads are long, My invention is a recumbent pedal trike with a little extra grunt. worth of batteries In the back I've got 3,000 watts' 200 watts on a public road. which you can limit down to is capable of 85km an hour. But anywhere else my bike even small bumps hurt At that speed, and steering dampers. so I've designed my own suspension by a creature called a toadfish The ultralight shell was inspired

aluminium mesh and polyester resin.' and is moulded from my own blend of you don't even get wet. So in the rain, in the Hunter Valley, Brett White. Please welcome from Pokolbin APPLAUSE G'day, Brett. You don't get wet in the rain convertible mode today. but we are going to drive it in Yes, you're welcome to have a drive. about it. Fantastic. I'm quite excited

in electric bikes for? How long have you been interested electric ones, for about ten years. I've been building bikes, Yeah? from start to finish. This one took me four years a long-term invention, isn't it? And it's fair to say it's We're not going to see the road like this tomorrow, suddenly full of cars in 10 years or 15 years? but who knows where the world will be It's something that I think is just going to take off eventually.

I think it's already begun. Yeah, it has.