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.
Sky News The Contrarians -

View in ParlView

(generated from captions) Hell welcome to the Contrarians, I am Peter van

Onselen, this is the only

show on Sky or everyone else,

despite what Tom Murphy says

on Twitter we don't read out

his tweets, we do, the only show that involves you, the

viewer. Something apparently monumentus

happened this week, Barack

Obama visited our country and spoke in the parliament. I

don't mind the leader of a democratic country speaking in the parliament it

certainly beats what happened

in 2003 when the cheed leader

of China was invited by John Howard to speak in the

parliament. Nothing like a

leader of a total arian

genocide al dictatorship addressing our parliament.

Nothing I am fond of but

Barack Obama is is a

different story and herein

lies in my view we need to

understand despite the naysayers about the aAmerican alliance it is what is all

important for Australia, sure

economically we are more than

a little bit dependant on

China, but if it becomes an

either-or and hopefully it

never does of course, the US

is where our values are

shared not with China, and

until such time as China is

prepared to truly embrace

democracy, the fact that they

have embraced capitalism only

speaks to our prosperity doesn't speak to our

political culture, values and freedoms, these are things

that should be fundamental to

anyone in this world and the fact China doesn't embrace

those concepts should be a permanent cause for concern

no matter how much they buy

what we dig out of the

ground. People that attack

the Americans will do well to remember something what Tony

Abbott had to say during his

speech in the parliament when

Obama was there, not his

political advantage by disgraceful attempts at

raising things like domestic

tax issues but when he did

make the very valid point

that like it or not America

in world standards in

relation to super powers down

through the ages, is an id credibly benign super power

and we should be grateful for

that. Let's see what the

panel think. Heading up the

Menzies research centre,

Julian Leeser, and former

Kevin Rudd speech writer,

Troy Bramson thanks for your

company. And closest to me,

Dr Greg O'Mahoney, barrister extraordinare. Thank you for

your company. Good to be here. Greg were you inspired

by Obama's speech in the

parliament? I thought it was

pretty pathetic as far as

people that are supposed to

be great or ators go, e it

looked like he was struggling

without the auto queue. I

thought it was a great

speech. It was a fascinating

discussion about what matters

in life. Take us through it.

What was fascinating? I like

the way he analysed

specifics, what did you history. Let's get to

really like about it? The hi

of history being on the side

of the free and setting up a

dichotomy between the US and

China, the dichotomy you said

you hope it will never become

either-or. He demonstrated

the rhetorical verve you

don't see in the House too

often. I agree with the last point. You only have to

compare it to the speech of

Gillard and Abbott. It was an

absolute dy display of showmanship versus two ordinary, particularly

Abbott's speech it was embarrassing. Jowlan you

would agree with that? No, I

people are so excited by Tony am not, I don't know why

Abbott's speech. At the end

of the day it's a politician making a political speech.

News flash, it was good that

he made that speech, it was

tactically very good because

people are talking about it

today and talking about the

tax. Talking about it in a

very negative way. They are

talking about the issues of

the tax he raised and they

are talking about... they are

talking about some of the

substance of what he said in

the speech too which is good

instead of tauveng talking about the issues that the government would have liked

to talk about today so I

think it's a tactical master

stroke on Tony Abbott's part

Are you clearly waiting Troy

to talk about Kevin Rudd and

whether he's coming back. On

the speech, I think that Tony

Abbott did actually do things

good and not so good. You

never use those state

occasions to make partisan

political points, I agree

that was an embarrassing

moment for all Australians

Let's get Julian to admit

that. At the end of the day that is not the normal

practice in this country, do

you at least accept that

Julian? I understand Simon

Crean had a go at James Nash

when he was here about the --

of of Josh when he was here.

-- George Bush when he was

here. That is a domestic

issue that the Labor Party

had a difference of

talking to George Bush and opinion. Do you acknowledge

having a go at the Iraq war

is slightly different in the

front of Obama talking about

domestic taxation. These are international issues too the

price of mining resources in

Australia as compared to elsewhere is an international

issue, just as the sale of

uranium to India which is the other point he was talking

about, is a international

political issue. Going back

to Troy and answer this Troy,

tweets come in in support of

what Julian is saying had

Tony Abbott brought up

domestic policy at a dinner

Parliament House is where he speech I would get outraged.

should be raising those kind

of issues. No that makes no difference. Actually as someone used to write

speeching for Opposition speeches and have written

Leaders at state occasions,

like this. Troy Bramson on

the Contrarians? I have

actually and the way to do it

is to give a better speech. And I think if you look at

Tony Abbott's speech when the

Queen visited, he outdid

occasion because he spoke Julia Gillard on that

about the relationship, he

spoke about the monarchy very

occasion he went into convincingly, on this

domestic politics and he was

less fe but he did get

something right which would

raise the hair on the back of

many Labor MP s necks when he quoted Ben Chifley and he talked about the history of

the alliance and so on and paid homage to the contribution the Labor Party

made to that. That was very

smart politically and a lot of Labor people hated that. He started the historical context he gave

with some of the quotes he

had and so forth. It made

people squirm in seat s to

see him making the partisan political points and imagine

in you were Barack Obama you

will be sitting there going

what the hell is all this

about, I don't even know what

this guy is talking about and

he has mis used the occasion. Twitter has taken

you on. Tweets say they say Gillard slipping in her clean energy future comments isn't

that political and Gillard

brought up domestic issues as

well, so it Barack Obama as

well. Which is true, why does

Tony Abbott get singled out. Because Tony Abbott

believes in a clean energy

future as well. We all know that's not true, he

predividends to. He agrees

and then disagrees on climate change it changes

quite regularly but right

know we know they have got

the same emission reduction

target on 5% by 2020. So

that's the same policy goal

as the government. But I think that Tony Abbott made a

meal of it and Julian refers

to Simon Crean's speech. His

speech in 2003 was... You

want to model yourself on

him, he was on fire. That was

a effective speech. That

speech was written by the

greatest speech writer in the

nation's history. Grahame Freudennberg and what Simon

Crean Crean did that on that

occasion, said we disagree on

some things but the alliance

is strong enough for us to be

able to disagree. So that was

an important poed and Crean

-- point. If you had been Tony Abbott the other day

there is no way you would have engaged in party

political commentary. I am

not Tony Abbott and I haven't

turned an opposition party

around the way he has, he

cheerily knows about how to

run an issue -- clearly knows

how to run an issue and how to capture the political mood

of a country and how to

capture a political moment

and he did that well. Here we

are we have talked now for 10

minutes about Tony Abbott's speech rather than talking

about the policy initiatives that came out of this and

whether it was a triumph for

Julia Gillard or not. I think

that's a win for Tony Abbott.

But we are talking about it

because it wasn't a good

speech because he

misjudged. It is hardly...

Julian subscribes in any

publicity is good publicity I

think. We are talking about

the uranium sale to India

question, that are the key

messages for... One of the

key colleagues speaking to

adjourn lifts say how

embarrassing -- journalists today saying how embarrassing

or cringe worthy it was. I

didn't find that, the uranium

decision in particular, that

backflip is very interesting

and think this is something

that no-one has really

commented on. It's much more

about domestic politics We

had an email come in say

could Peter please stop

interrupting when other

people are talking. Thank

you. I want to make a point

about the uranium issue and

that is, nobody has made this

point so far this is much

more about domestic politics,

than it is about

international politics or

about trade with India. There

are a very large active and politically savvy Indian

community here in Australia,

and they have been agitating

for these changes and they

are located in particular in

five of the - and Sydney and

Brisbane and Melbourne, in

five most marginal seats in

the country and I think this

is all about Julia Gillard

Han hanging on to some of

those seats and no-one has

really made that comment yet

in relation to this and I

think that's why it's so

significant. But that's all fine I don't disagree with any of that I support the

decision like you do, the

question is should the Opposition Leader have brought up a domestic political squabble in front of the US President. That is

the issue. We will take that

as a rhetorical question. We will go to a commercial

break. When we come back we

will widen this out to look at issues which Julian

started to touch on ahead of

Labor's national conference,

it comes up in two weeks

time. We will take a closer

look at this idea of a conscience vote for gay

marriage, we will also take a

closer look at this idea of

opening up uranium sales to

India and what people think about that. Including the

panel. You are watching the

Contrarians back in a moment.

Welcome back you are watching the Contrarians we

will continue with the panel

in a moment but first let's

take a look at today's news headlines.

Authorities have confirmed

that three people have died

in a fire at a nursing home

in Sydney's north-west.

Police warn the death toll

from the fire may rise. 100

people were evacuated from

the centre, with at least

eight residents taken to

hospital with serious

injuries. Emergency crews

have been praised though for

their quick response, and

work to evacuate residents

from the deadly blaze,

firefighters, police and parametics are still at the

scene as authorities investigate the cause of the

fire. South Australian

Senator Mary Jo Fisher has

been found guilty of

assaulting a security guard

at an Adelaide supermarket in

December last year. The court

ordered that no viction be

recorded because she was

suffering from dup relation

at the time of the incident

-- depression at the time of

the incident. Outside the

court she said she was glad

the ordeal was finally over.

Despite being found guilty

Mary Jo Fisher will remain a

Senator. The teenage parents

of a 4-month-old baby girl

have been charged with murder

after allegedly killing the child. South Australian

Police found the baby girl's

body after she had been dead

for a week at the couple's

superban home on Tuesday. The

discovery was made after the

pair told Families SA about

their baby's death. The

girl's 17-year-old mother and

19-year-old father appeared

in separate courts, charged

with failing to immediately

notify the coroner of the

death. Prime Minister Julia

Gillard is preparing to head

to Bali for the East Asia

summit. US President Barack

Obama is already there for

the talks, which will

officially begin tomorrow.

18 world leaders will be in Indonesia where global

economy and trade will be

high on the agenda. Another

key topic of discussion is expected to be the response

to natural disasters, which

in the past have been

described as slow. And in

sport, the US has tightened

its grip on the Presidents

Cup late on day two

Cup late on day two at Royal

Melbourne it was four ball

featured and with the final groups almost finished the

internationals are down 7-3

on the overall score board.

Tomorrow's forecast s.

Welcome back you are

watching the Contrarians

where I'm joined by Julian

Leeser, Troy Bramson and Greg O'Mahoney and let's read out

a few emails and tweets come

N we have an had an email

come in make the point from

Barbara that even Obama's

speech writers and

researchers can't put their

facts right. He credited Australia with being the

first country to give women

the vote when in fact it was

New Zealand. Where speech

writers probably went wrong

was South Australia was the

first state in the world to

give women the vote but as a nation New Zealand, we

weren't a nation in time at

that point as well. The other

one is Peter, is not myself,

has gotten in touch and said

why don't you interrupt Troy

and Greg for a change. This real victimization of

Julian's come -- complex that

viewers have, he says step

out of Canberra for a change, Pete. Pete we record this?

Sydney I'm not based in

Canberra and we have an email

that came n which is quite a

funny one from Miriam saying

she is surprised that Tony didn't ask for a suspension

of Standing Orders in

parliament yesterday. So that

he could treat President

Obama to one of his rants

that he does after Question

Time. I thought that was

probably the email of the

day. We have also had one

come in from gen we on

Twitter saying you watch the

second half of the show will

be Abbott bashing as well.

Let's move on to the Labor

Party national conference and

focus on that with the time

we have got left. Julia

Gillard started the week

before we got Obama-tised in

the second half of the week

with his 28 hour stop over,

the two issues she

intentioned to take to

national conference you have

raised one of them already,

but the idea of uranium

sales, to India, is one we will talk more about at the

moment and the other one is a conscience vote on gay

marriage. If twlas conscience

vote on gay marriage are you

for or against? I am in

favour of the Marriage Act as

it currently is. No the in

favour of gay marriage Can you see that changing

maybe? That's my view. Do you

agree with that Troy? No, I

support gay marriage. I think

that it's a right that is

extended by the state not to all citizens and on that

basis it's wrong. Greg

O'Mahoney? I firmly am in

support of gay marriage. Two

out of three, 60%, 60 to 65%

of Australians are in favour

of it according to the polls

so it looks like we have a

fair split there but I am very critical of the concept

of a conshoens vote on it

insofar as that is

meaningless, start with you

Julian in parliament if one

side of politics imposes

party discipline. I have no

problem whether it's a party

discipline position or a conscience vote position

personally but it has to be bipartisan if Labor is going

to be seen to be being active

in this space. If it is not a bipartisan conscience vote

there is no point. They might

as well not even have one. I don't know how the split is going to go in the Labor

Party in terms of how people are going to vote at the

national conference. But you

would have to think that

there has to be a very

substantial majority in the

Labor Party who are in favour

of changing the law in order

for it to pass. I mean, I

don't know what the

independents think on this,

Bob Cater I think has come

out in favour of traditional marriage. The Greens

presumably... That's

surprising. I don't know what

Oakeshott and Windsor think,

there are a whole lot of

variables here so it is hard to know exactly where it is

going to go. I don't think it is surprising the Prime

Minister has come out to say

what she has, last year she

spoke at the Rooty -- HillRSL

and she felt personally she

supported it but politically

she felt bound to gave the

answer she gave. She made a promise to the Australian

Christian lobby she was going

to take the... We all know

she is very big on her

pre-election promises. That's

probably a fair point Peter but at the end of the day I

think she wanted to stand by

that particular promise and

she has until this point. I think it's okay for members

of parliament to change their

views even if she did give

that promise, I think the

reality is this issue has

probably passed both major

parties by, we now see

opinion polls consistently

saying that a majority of

Labor, Liberal, and voters,

support gay marriage and a

majority of voters overall

support gay marriage. This is

an issue where I think the

Prime Minister is out of step

with the community, but she's

more out of step with our

Labor Party colleagues, a

party that she sleeds, she is

well out of step on this

issue and I think it was a

missed opportunity, think for

a party that says, the Prime Minister has said her

government is all about

opportunity, about equality

of opportunity and you can't

have that as your modus operandi for being in

government and not supporting

equality of marriage for all

Australians that is regrettable. What about what

Julian says, she did make a

commitment before the

election if she turned around

and yet again broke one of

those promises she will be rightly pursued by the Christian lobby. There is

nothing wrong with her saying

I understand the community's

sentiment on the issue and I am changing my view to

reflect that. I think... If

you made a promise before the

election surely that has to count for something otherwise

why mat promises ahead of elections. Because leadership

is about knowing when to lead

public opinion and when to

follow it. So you follow it before the election when you

need the votes and then leave

it afterwards when you don't

care and hope to shape it by

the time... There is votes to

be lost. Why did she say it,

because it was a tight

election that's why. But

there is votes lost. That's

the thing. It is no longer a

popular position to say you

are against gay marriage.

That's the reality of it. I

don't think you should have

to honour stupid promises,

this is an issue on which

both sides of parliament are

mass ofly behind the cusp where the Australian people

are at. I am in favour of gay

marriage but I also thinks it

means something if she makes

a promise before election. She absolutely made

that promise and that's the

reason why she has kept the

line that she has because

there is only so many

promises you can break and

she's broken the carbon tax

policy. We had a tweet come

in saying Peter I wonder why

you are in favour of gay

marriage. Some sort of

attempt to suggest something.

That was from Tom Murphy,

ladies and gentlemen, anyone

who wonderers whose got a

problem there, Tom Murphy was

the person who put that Tweet

in. The issue about the

conscience vote because by

the Prime Minister saying she

will move for a conscience

vote she's moving to not let

this issue succeed. She is

moving to maintain the status

quo, that is the effect of

the position. Julian says the majority of Labor Party

people will support it, I

think that the media have

underestimated how much the

support is amongst Labor

Parliamentarians for this. I

know that there are many

Labor parliament an whose

haven't stated their position

yet but will come out and

support it when the time

comes but by supporting a conscience vote it is

consigned to a loss. Because

there will be a majority of Liberal and National Party MP

whose will be again against it. I I think public upon on

this is not as strong as the

polls necessarily suggest. It

depends how you ask the

question in fairness. If you

look at the Californian

situation, in California

which is probably one of the

most liberal states in the,

and I use liberal in

progressive term particularly

there in the US they had a proposition whether to resent

the gay marriage. Everyone

thought it had no chance of

getting up and it got up. And

there was quite a large turnout the vote campaign on

both sides of that debate. There is a tweet come

in Troy pointing out you made

the point in relation to the

whole gauge mare with Julia

Gillard, that it is already for pollies to change their

view. The person made the

observation except if it is

Tony Abbott. You have

repeatedly bashed Tony Abbott

on his views on climate

change and a host of other

issues, he changed them

whether why is it okay for

him to not change has views and not Julia Gillard. That's

a good points. It is but let

me explain my view but if

there is everywelling public

support for a position then

it is okay to change your

view to reflect what the community wants. At the end

of the day we elect people to parliament to represent

community. The issue with

Tony Abbott on climate change

he hasn't changed his view he

has done backflip, triple

pike sever times, he he was for it and then against a carbon tax. Leadership is

about changing your view when

there is public support for T

there has always been public

support for action on climate

change but Tony Abbott has

had, so many positions on

climate change, more

positions than the kama

Sutra, that's the reality of

it. He said on Sky News he would support, a carbon tax,

then he says he wouldn't. He

said he was for climate

change then he said climate change was crap now he's for

it. So he's all over the shop

on an issue, he has changed

his opinion multiple times. The difference between

Tony Abbott and Julia Gillard

in terms of scans ski is

since Tony Abbott has been

leader of the Liberal Party

his position has boon consistent on climate change

and the carbon tax issue. You

cannot say the same for Julia

Gillard about the carbon tax,

and you now cannot say the

same thing for her in

relation to gay marriage. We

have a email that said gay

marriage is a minority issue.

Food on the table is the real

issue. Values, etc. Now,

that's not an unfair point I suppose and that's probably

why there is a danger here

for the Labor if it gets

bogged down in the debate andsy way why Julia Gillard

made sure she had two distinct issues on the Labor

Party conference, not just

that but uranium sales to

India. My question as a

follow on from what Julian

said before the break about

what's driving this, let's start with you Greg on this,

what do you think is going on

here, Labor reversed John

Howard Australia decision to

export uranium to India, has

things really changed between

then and four years ago and now other than perhaps what Julian is talking about as

there being a domestic

imperative based on the

Indian community? No, I don't

think they have and this is

an example of a Prime

Minister who has had a slight

burst of confidence following

improvement in the polls and

who has decided it looks

decisive and it tooks people

by surprise and took her own

Foreign Minister by surprise,

in the scheme of things it doesn't really effect the

Australian economy, we will

stillsen uranium at the same

time price and still sell as

much uranium as we had. It is

a very symbolic gesture

placating a power in Asia but

in terms of the economy it

goes nowhere. Don't we have a new market in India,

certainly the Indian also

leap at the chance to buy uranium from us t is going to

be a good thing for the

Australian economy. I think

we will not sell any more

uranium for what I understand

we already sold T will still

be sold at the same spot

prices. I don't think it's a

big deal at all from a economic point of view We

will go to a break but we

will start with you I promise

Julian. To take us to the

break an email that came in

from stooifrn he said Troy

reminds me of Dick y Knee

from 'hey, hey it's

Saturday'. Back in a moment.

Welcome back. You are

watching the Contrarians

where I am joined by Leeser

-- Julian Leeser, former

Kevin Rudd speech writer Troy

Bramson and barrister Dr Greg

O'Mahoney. Julian I promised

with you an r and an e-mail

said if you can draw breath

from your constant Coalition

bashing you might want to discuss why our Prime Minister can play internal

politics but not even update

our Foreign Minister on her

decision in relation to

selling uranium to India. Julian off you

government That was the point

I'm going to make. I think it

is, it really is indicative

of the state of the poor relationship between the

Prime Minister and the

Foreign Minister, the feblers

the Foreign Minister was in

India when she made the announcement and there was

not even a courtesy call to say kooeven I'm going to do

this and you know, he looked

pretty shafted last night

when he was talking to Lee Sales on the antecedent report. Do you think that was

dell -- on the '7.30

report'. I think there was a

lot of bile between Gillard

and Rudd still and I think

there is so much focus on the

Labor Party who is going to

leave... is it as bad between

Turnbull and Abbott? There is

no bad blood there.

Absolutely none. But you can

see the bad blud... I thought

you had better connections

than that. Can you see the

bad blood between Kevin and Julia from however many

kilometres away, Delhi is to Canberra. Who would have

thought at the end of Obama's

visit that Rudd has injected

himself into the headlines.

It is so unlike him to be

front and centre. Air Force

One had been in the air about 10 minutes before he did that

interview, I think to be fair. Everything about Rudd

is calculated and it's about

putting himself forward. It beggars believe I think to

think he didn't go on the

'7:30 report' last night

expecting to be an issue discussed. If you want to

know what's happened to the

Labor Party for Kevin Rudd

and Julia Gillard. You should

read Troy Bramson's book

here. All should read it

because he hangs a lots of

stuff on the Labor Party here

and in there is particularly

interesting statistics at the

back about how Labor people

don't know what they stand

for at all. I am happy to

agree with Julian on those

points he raised. It is a

good book and available in

all good book stores. Your

book is just trading in what

you know and your contacts on

the Labor Party to trash a

party that has been loyal to

you and given you so many

work opportunities, and a

chance to be President of the

Labor Party, etc, etc. That's

not true Peter because there

wouldn't be so many people

would speak to me about

Labor's crisis if they felt

that was what I would

do. Let's see if you can get

a second book out now. It is

a very constructive book, not

the de instructive book. I

have got to say Bob Carr who

launched in Sydney, it was a

great speech but he did not

miss on opening the attack on

the Labor Party. When you

came up straight after him

and said this is a very

coninstructedive book we are

here to make friends not lose

them I have got to say you

followed a very aggressive

attack on the party. What I

have tried to do is actually

talk about all the problems,

be frank about it and then

saying how they can be fixed

They has turned another plug

for your book. We had another e-mail come in from a

gentleman by the name of

serviceman who faithfully Kevin who says I'm a returned

served my country for six

years I am also gay. Imagine

my dismay after serving my

country to find out I had

less rights than the guy next

door. I agree wholeheartedly

with you Kevin. Unfortunately

Julian doesn't but that is my

view. That said I guess the

one thing you can say is

that, now compared to four

years ago, there are equal

rights other than the issue

of marriage. That's the only

thing that you can say. It's

a ceremonial discrimination

more than anything else. But

you can answer, that Julian

said before it doesn't effect

too many people not too many

people are worked up about

it. I am not sure that's

right but certainly those who

are, are immensely passionate

about the issue and as with

all human rights type issues,

it is not the number of

people affected it is also

the degree to which they

agreed and I think a lot of

people feel incredibly

aggrieved by the current law. I said not many people

were affected I just said I

don't think the support for

it is as strong as it seems

in the opinion polls. I don't

know why anybody who is

married or has been married,

wants to inject themselves

and think they should be able

to talk about how somebody

else should run their lives,

I don't think anybody as an

individual has any role in

anybody else a private life

and I don't think the

government does either and

the government of the land

sets laws and make s entitlements and rules in

relation to people and they

should be fair across

everybody in society that's

the way it should be. And for

a Labor Party that says it believes in equality of opportunity as I said before

this is a core Labor issue,

for the 21st century and the

Labor Party sadly is missing

in action on this issue. How

do you think Kevin Rudd will vote in the conscience vote

on gay marriage? I am not

sure, kerb would vote. If you

had to walk through a life which way do you think Kevin

Rudd will go? Against it. He

will vote against it. That's

the whole point you if you

have a conscience vote you have got to draw deep down

and work out what you

believe. This is a public

policy issue, Peter and I were talking about earlier

when when the Whitlam government, modernised

Australia's marriage laws, no

fault divorce and so on in

the 1970s this was a policy issue about marriage and laws

to do with that. This is not

a conscience vote issue. This

is not a life or death issue,

this is a public policy

issue, and there should be no conscience vote on it. Change of pace with the remaining

few minutes we have got left. Does anyone on the panel have

a problem with the arrival up

in Darwin or the imminent

arrival up in Darwin of US Marines and service people in

the thousands? I certainly

don't. I mean I know the

Greens are up in arms about

you it but it will not be a

surprise to China to hear we

have a very strong

relationship with the US and I think Australians should be

delighted that the US want to express that by placing

troops here. Julian you look

like you disagree? No, never

on a unity ticket with the

Greens, we have got some US

personnel here in relation to

some of the joint bases that

we have like Pine Gap

famously so, I think that one

of the things that's been

missed in this debate is that

there are a number of

countries in the region that

would be pleased to have a

stronger US presence in the

region. There will be a lot

of single women very happy in

Darwin as well. Troy,

thought? I think it is good. Kim Beazley summed up this

relationship with the US very

effectively some years ago,

when he said that this is

basically a blessing of

history. It is amazing how

many Labor people succinctly

summarise for you for the

great Simon Crean speech that

nobody but you remembers to Kim Beazley, summing up

foreign policy issues. Let me tell what he said. He said if

you are a nation setting out

today to set up a security

arrangement, a security treaty with the US you would

never get it. So we have one,

one of the oldest in the

world and it's an inshakable

alliance and a positive

development. Now, Barack

Obama has said he is re

pivoting US policy to be a

Pacific power again, focus on the Asia-Pacific region, we

are here and it's a positive

development. I agree with

Greg and Julian on

that. Final thoughts, each of

you, parliament resumes next

week, I believe. Final

sitting week of the year it will be again if I'm not

mistaken. Are we expecting to

see anything especially

interesting. There is quite a

host of legislation that is going to be going before the parliament so it will be a

busy week. I am interested in

your thoughts on the policy

side of it, and on politics

start with you Julian. The

mining tax will be the big

issue. Think it will probably

pass unfortunately but that

will be the issue that really dominates the debate. I think

it will probably pass too but

Same Maiden I believe has tweeted or made comment of

the fact that Andrew Wilkie

has expressed today he is not certain whether he is supporting it or not. That's an interesting development

about whether or not the

government does get its

mining tax and what impact

that has on the debate. Troy? This was supposed to be

the year of decision and

delivery, so there is a week

to go and a whole host of stuff that hasn't been delivered and decisions haven't been made on so it will be interesting whether the government can get around

to doing that. Bizarre in the

context what you just said

they got rid of the second sitting week. Albanese announced they weren't going

to have that. If this is the

decision to pack it all in

why did they get rid of week

two? Julia Gillard set a very

high bar for herself at the

end of last year or the start

of this year, it hasn't been

met but she does end the year much stronger than she

started, the carbon tax stuff

was passed, she's shown to be

very effective ob foreign

policy and hosting the Queen

and Barack Obama and chog vm.

She has had a good few weeks.

Abbott is performs much less

effectively than he was and

he is under a lot of pressure so the government ending

better but not as probably

best as they hoped. Greg not

as much time. Kevin Rudd is

given a speech in almost a

week's time in reforms of the

Labor Party and I expect on

the back of that there will

be talks on his own

leadership aspirations. Thanks for your company. Julian Leeser from

the men Is research centre, former Speech writer to Kevin

Rudd, I wonder where Greg

O'Mahoney got that thought

from and Greg O'Mahoney barrister, Troy Bramson. You

have been watching the Contrarians tune into

Australian Agenda on Sunday

mortgage we will have greens leader Bob Brown for a look

on what the Greens view on

the arrival of Obama as well

as some of the issues going

to be debated at laive's

conference are and also we

will have a round panel discussion about the impact

both of Barack Obama's visit,

and the policy implications

from the decisions that

flowed from it. That will include myself and Paul Kelly

and we will be joined by the

Australians foreign affairs

editor, 'The Australian''s

defence editor and the

Asia-Pacific editor Rohan

Kallick as well. Make sure

you don't miss that one. You have been watching the Contrarians, thanks for your

company. Live Captioning by Ai-Media